User talk:Wbm1058

For discussion of RMCD bot edits, see User talk:RMCD bot. For Merge bot edits, see User talk:Merge bot. For Bot1058 edits, see User talk:Bot1058.

For help with getting started creating bots, see User talk:wbm1058/Creating bots.

Disambiguation link notifications

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)

My content creator's to-do list has items so old they've grown mold

...so I moved them to the /Content to-do items subpage. Someday maybe I'll get to these... Wbm1058 (talk) 03:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia "Merge" like WP:RM or WP:AFD

There are a lot of tumbleweeds rolling over at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers... the last edit added a {{backlog}} template. Now that I'm an administrator, I've decided to focus on clearing the Wikipedia:WikiProject History Merge and Category:Possible cut-and-paste moves backlogs first. If Proposed mergers were busier, I'd make this a higher priority.

• Older discussions are at /Automating proposed mergers. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Mergers

Since you run MergeBot and RMCDBot, I was wondering, if it were possible to create an auto generated list like WP:RM has but for WP:PM, that links to the centralized discussion area, and lists the topics to be merged (from/to/with) ? As the current MergeBot already generates arrows indicated from/to/with, it would seem a modification of template:requested move/dated/multi would do to handle such an automated listing based on a standardized talk section header.

-- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

See § Wikipedia "Merge" like WP:RM or WP:AFD above. Still on my back-burner. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Adding permalinks to block log entries for 3RR

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

Cross-namespace redirects

Deep gratitude

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?! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 05:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• Just a note that Category:Redirects to user namespace is significantly underpopulated. I was working off the list at User:Largoplazo/WP Redirects to further populate it, and worked my way through the A's. It's on my patrol list, so I may get to it eventually. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

  I finally used AWB to populate Category:Redirects to user namespace; it now has over 900 members. My technique was to Make list from source Special page: All Redirects in namespace Wikipedia: – the category hasn't yet been fully populated for other namespaces. I think all of the cross-namespace redirect categories can and should eventually be populated by bots... AWB may be able to do that with a sufficiently sophisticated configuration. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

  See HERE for the regex find & replace used for this. I manually monitored this and had to skip some that were already rcat templated; also may have missed some. wbm1058 (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

  Or the database query method used to generate User:Largoplazo/WP Redirects may be a more efficient method than my AWB special page walk-through. I need to figure out how to do that myself. @Paine Ellsworth: FYI. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping, Wbm1058! That's pretty cool stuff you're doing – and waay outside my full comprehension. Please keep up the great work!  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  15:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Redirects from namespace 1 to namespace 0

SELECT concat( "*[[Talk:", p.page_title, "]] redirects to [[:", r.rd_title, "]]" )
FROM redirect r
INNER JOIN page p ON p.page_id = r.rd_from
WHERE p.page_namespace = 1
AND   r.rd_namespace = 0
ORDER by page_title;

• Query – User:Wbm1058/Talk-to-mainspace redirects – wbm1058 (talk) 00:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

VisualEditor

Numbers

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)

Invitation

Thank you for using VisualEditor and sharing your ideas with the developers.

Hello, Wbm1058,

The Editing team is asking for your help with VisualEditor. I am contacting you because you posted to a feedback page for VisualEditor. Please tell them what they need to change to make VisualEditor work well for you. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and try to fix these small things, too. 

You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.

More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.

Unsubscribe from this list • Sign up for VisualEditor's multilingual newsletter • Translate the user guide

Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Setting magic words

I've done some analysis of VisualEditor's setting of behavior switches, see the archived discussion. I intend to follow up on this. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate template parameters

• File:Haut-Brion 1931 chateau card.JPG
• File:Petrus 1931 chateau card.JPG
• File:Margaux 1931 chateau card.JPG
• File:Cantemerle 1931 chateau card.JPG

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)

To do: possible merge of {{Non-free use rationale}} and {{Non-free use rationale 2}}

For that matter, {{Non-free use rationale 2}} and {{Non-free use rationale logo}} are also somewhat redundant, as show by the usage of both here. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Generate automatic summary /* blah */ when I manually add a section heading

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T22307

Consolidated discussions are at my subpage /Generate automatic summary /* blah */ when I manually add a section heading when editing. Hopefully solutions are on the way soon. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019/Phase 2 §Marking separate discussions – wbm1058 (talk) 12:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Module documentation and test cases

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)

Module:Syrian Civil War map is in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded.

I edited Module:Syrian Civil War map/doc, and created Module:Syrian Civil War map/testcases.

Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War used to transclude {{Syrian Civil War detailed map}}, until substituted.

Template:Syrian Civil War detailed map loads Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map.

Template:Syrian Civil War map (created 21 February 2015‎) . . . Wbm1058 (talk) 03:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Module:Syrian Civil War map/testcases

Module:Syrian Civil War map/testcases has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Accuracy

Your comments about the state of accuracy in the world on Jimbo's talk page are very interesting. I would like to explore this topic further. I'm particularly fond of your statement, "Society as a whole perhaps doesn't value accuracy as much as it should, and indeed Wikipedia editors should strive for a higher level of accuracy." Heck, I think some kind of variation on this should be our guiding principle. You've really nailed something here, and I think it's worth pursuing. One counterargument to pursuing accuracy, however, might attempt to appeal to the blind men and an elephant analogy. How would you respond to this? Viriditas (talk) 08:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The best we can do is report the truth as best as we know it, and be open-minded to new information that can give us a better vision of the truth. As more "parts of the elephant" become known to us, the more accurate our "truth" becomes. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 17:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:XTools
• The xTools Archives
• wikitech:Help:Tool Labs
• How to log in to my account via SSH using PuTTY
• User:Σ tools on labs
  • Article revision statistics
• WikiHistory
  • https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikihistory/ (original German version)
  • https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/wikihistory/ (xTools English port)

So many things needing fixed, so little time time get to more than a fraction of them, sigh. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of DOS operating systems

I remember that you once intended to take your Timeline of DOS operating systems article to featured status, but did not take time to familiarize yourself with the process. Looking at that article, the only thing that is not compliant with the featured list criteria is the lead section. Basically, the only thing required to promote it to FL status would be to expand the lead section by adding an introduction to DOS operating systems. After that, you are good to go and can nominate it according to the instructions on WP:FLC. (Since this article is a list, the Good Article process does not apply.) Good luck! sst✈ 04:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I see, apparently there is no "good list" equivalent to Good Article, so I can skip that step and go straight to becoming a member of Category:Featured lists, where around a couple dozen featured timelines can be found. Thanks! As I haven't made any significant updates to that since February, I suppose I'm due to get back to it and finish it off soon. Wbm1058 (talk) 11:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Race Against the Machine

Hi wbm, I see you mention this book on your user page. Does the main thesis have implications for how Wikipedia works, and if so, on what time scale? - Dank (push to talk) 15:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

A main thesis of the book is that accelerating technology improvements will reduce employment, and over time this will effect more higher-skilled occupations. We see this already with jobs coming back to the US from China... because they are replacing people with bots. Yes, a few more jobs for Americans who are skilled at bot development, operations and maintenance. But way fewer jobs than were displaced in China. Of course, at Wikipedia there are relatively few editors that work for money. We already have very intelligent bots such as ClueBot NG that help tremendously with tasks such as vandalism reversion. That one has over 4 million edits now! Bots also help with spelling corrections. There could be further enhancements to these tasks that could reduce the need for new page patrollers and spelling correctors. Time scale is dependent on volunteer contributions, or possible funding by the Wikimedia Foundation. wbm1058 (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The future seems to be coming at us pretty fast. I try to stay informed-but-neutral. - Dank (push to talk) 17:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Templates for deletion for deletion

Implement multiple parameters to prefix: operator on fulltext searches

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T159403

See also: Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 29 § Archive and search, Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 152 § Search prefix:, and mw:Talk:Wikimedia Discovery § Search prefix:

See also: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 152 § Search prefix revisited – search with multiple prefixes?, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2017-02-27/Op-ed § Discovery

{{Search deletion discussions}} and {{Search prefixes}} and all that authors other stuff should probably be deleted after emailing him. His {{Create parameter string}} is used but not well.

For now, I'd fix wp: Deletion process § Search all deletion discussions with a search link for each of the fullpagenames in wp:Deletion process § Step-by-step instructions (all discussion types).

I would. And I'd be glad for an invite to help you with any queries or discussions on this matter. — Cpiral§Cpiral 05:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 61 § is there a way to search several sections with one search? – June 10–17, 2009

And User talk:Rainman § modification to search several Wikipedian sections at one time – June 15–17, 2009

And User talk:Stmrlbs/Archive/001 § multiple prefixes – June 15–17, 2009

June 17, 2009 Help:Searching documentation update, alas documentation of this multiple-prefixes-separated-by-pipes feature was removed on October 11, 2009 when this was rewritten, to try to improve usability

"To search multiple sections of Wikipedia with different prefixes, enter the different prefixes with a pipe delimiter."

"This should be especially useful for archive searching in concert with inputbox or searchbox."

• MediaWiki search engine improved, 10 November 2008
  • en.wiki migrated to new search backend, June 2, 2009. Wikitech-l
• Initial import of rewritten Lucene-Search extension
  • History No commits between August 2007 and March 2010. So where is the June 2009 change to support this?

@Cpiral: so clearly prefix did at least briefly take pipes. Unfortunately, the volunteer developer of that, Rainman, isn't active any more either, and I haven't been able to locate his code changes that implemented that feature. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the history lesson. Interesting. Maybe useful.

Anyway, for now we have wp:deletion process#Search all deletion discussions. Hope that helps. — Cpiral§Cpiral 07:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Those missing templates

Hi Wbm1058

I'm guessing that it was this edit[1] by you which produced the flurry of Category:ISO 639 name xyz-type categories currently listed at Special:WantedCategories. Is that right?

If so, is there any guidance on how to create them? It would be handy to have them cleared before the next update of Special:WantedCategories brings in another flood of new stuff. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: Right, this was my clunky attempt to solve a problem. See Template talk:ISO 639 name#Return empty string for codes not on the list. Sorry about cluttering up WantedCategories; that was a side-effect that I didn't think of. These categories are not actually supposed to be created, but rather templates with the same name. The idea was to avoid degrading the reader experience by showing redlink-templates, but provide an easier way for patrolling editors to find the problem. I guess I should revert that, but it would be nice to replace it with a better solution, if we can come up with one. wbm1058 (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, my post was a bit unclear. What I meant was: any guidance on how to create the templates? I'd be happy to help if I knew how.

This looks fine as a way of getting a list of needed templates. But now that Special:WantedCategories has created the list, it would be helpful if the template could stop generating these categories, prferably before the next update (which is likely on 11 April or 12 April).

I have gotten a it of practice at quickly grabbing a categ list from the oddly-formatted Special:WantedCategories, so I made a list of the ISO 639 categs, at User:Wbm1058/ISO 639 categs. I hope that helps; if it's a nuisance, pls delete it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, this is kind of like the blind leading the blind to repair issues caused by other blind. There is Category:Articles containing unknown ISO 639 language template, which was created by Jonesey95. Then there is also Category:Lang-x templates with other than ISO 639. Some editors have used these "language" templates for dialects of languages that do not have ISO 639 codes, thus the attempts of templates to look up ISO 639 codes fail with errors implying an ISO 639 template needs to be created. Well, there is none to be created. My solution for cases like that is edits like THIS and THIS. We need to sort these dialect "languages" out from the real languages that actually have ISO 639 codes where a template really does need to be created. I'm not an expert in any of this, and got involved with it when the new Category:Pages with template loops was created, and that snagged the poor design of these "language" templates. See also Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 154#Category:Pages with template loops for background on what led me into this rabbit-hole. Template:Language with name and Template:Lang were never intended to be used for dialects, but how can we expect editors other than the ones who designed these templates to know that? – wbm1058 (talk) 12:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

What an almighty mess. My immediate question is to ask what purpose this whole system serves, and whether any of this necessary? I know little about the topic, so I make no attempt to try answering that pair of questions ... but I do think that when something gets so complex, it's time to re-evaluate the cost-benefit ratios.

I'm afraid that I have neither the skills to get that deep into these templates nor the inclination to do so, so I think i'd better withdraw my offer to help. Sorry!

In the meantime, please could you revert the edit which populated the categs? It does seem to have served its purpose, and the ongoing slog of clearing the 100–200 daily additions to Special:WantedCategories is impeded by these categs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

BrownHairedGirl, you are wise to move on to somewhere that makes more sense. The whole lang template system is a bit of a mess and in need of a rethink. In the meantime, I am slowly (five weeks so far) clearing out the errors and creating needed templates based on Category:Articles containing unknown ISO 639 language template. I should be done in a couple of weeks.

In answer to your "what purpose this whole system serves", tagging text with {{lang}} can affect how the enclosed text is rendered. It also adds a tracking category, which may be useful to some editors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not sure edits like this are the optimal solution – whether something is a language or a dialect is irrelevant, we want the text string to be formatted properly and bypassing {{Language with name}} doesn't help with that. I've had a look at User:Wbm1058/ISO 639 categs and most of these appear to either contain typos (in which case they need to be fixed in the specific pages that use the lang template), or to be of the type aaa-Bbb, which is the format for the language (aaa) + script(Yyyy) combination. Pinging Erutuon whom I've seen working on this. – Uanfala (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I am working on Category:Articles containing unknown ISO 639 language template and expect to have it mostly cleared out in a few days. When I started a month ago, there were something like 2,000 pages in the category. It's down to 332 right now. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I would replace all the templates with modules. The module could check to see if the code string is valid character-wise – either xyz or xyz-Abcd – using regular expressions. It could also check if the script and language codes are correct using the MediaWiki language library or a data module that lists language codes. And it could create linked language names by adding the articles as an entry in the data module. Wiktionary does all this language-related stuff using modules (see wikt:Module:languages, wikt:Module:scripts, wikt:Module:script utilities). I've begun such a module at Module:Language (see also Module:Language/scripts/data), though it does not currently do everything mentioned here. — Eru·tuon 18:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Sounds great to me. I see that you have already seen this discussion from six months ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

If you need any help, you can ask for it at Wikipedia:Lua/To do. While I've self-taught myself enough PHP to support two bots and even write one from scratch, I've yet to make time to study Lua, so I can only do so much with that. wbm1058 (talk) 20:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Task to switch between new and old interface of "search for contributions"

This section is a followup to an earlier discussion I initiated at the village pump.

Hello. For notification, the task to switch between new and old interface of user contributions page was rejected. Izno suggested personal gadget/script or something. I would prefer that the switch between old and new be proposed at WP:village pump (proposals). Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

George, I wouldn't know how to write a script to change the interface, and I'm not keen on switching between two less-than-ideal interfaces. There should only need be one, fully-functional interface that's adequate for efficiently handling all use cases. What we have now is not such an interface, and we should focus on getting that one improved. I'm frustrated with the current means of interacting with the developers – there is a confusing array of different "phabricators" on this, I'm not keen on the phabricator editing interface, and I don't know whether I should add to an existing phab or start a new one, so I prefer using Village Pump where I can use Wikitext. As I need to use this interface to perform specific tasks, I may report issues I have with the current interface that make it more difficult to get the job done. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... How about Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab), where we can discuss the user contributions interface? --George Ho (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe. But, per "defines a solution rather than a problem" I don't know if solutions developed in the idea lab would be welcomed by the developers. I'm not happy with the "handcuffs" placed on us with regard to modes of interaction with developers. Maybe if I just present problems to WP:VPT, and let them either tell me how to achieve my desired result, or make changes to the interface that allow me to achieve my desired result. wbm1058 (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

No offense, but IMO I don't think WP:VPT is a place for general feedback on any software or something. VPT is used for technical difficulties, bugs, glitches, and other tech issues that need immediate attention (not sure whether I phrased it correctly). One complaint describing none of these, and they'll either advise you to write a personal script/gadget or write one for you as they did before. But you're welcome to choose any appropriate venue. I still think the "idea lab" is best bet. --George Ho (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

At the top of WP:VPT there is a notice "Bug reports and feature requests should be made in Phabricator" but that's just redirecting us back to an interface I find less than ideal. I don't understand why they have such an aversion to Wikitext. I think that's easiest as all active editors are intimately familiar with it. Almost everything the developers in general try to pawn off as "easier" to use, I find to be more of a pain. But venue should be secondary to getting the issues raised, so if you want to start an idea lab thread, feel free. wbm1058 (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

On second thought, I just realized that you can go to meta:Tech and then post your concerns there. The developers changed the interface all over the wikis. --George Ho (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I see, meta:Tech#"Search for contributions" date range. So, let's let the latest bug fix settle in before we try using it again. That page seems like a good place for reporting issues with the Special:Contributions interface, as I hate to go to the trouble to submit a new bug report, only to find that one's already been submitted. wbm1058 (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T172041

The major bug is fixed. George Ho (talk) 06:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Great! I complained about the new widget date-picking interface after futzing with it and not figuring out how to efficiently make it work to actually select a specific date range. I assumed that it was working as designed, and that I was just too dense to figure out the secret for making it work. So after this bug fix, which I see involves other developers than those designing the widgets (go figure, I don't exactly understand the bug report), I'm happy to report that the widget now works for me with minimal fuss. There's more than one way to skin this cat, so while this might not be my preferred way, I'm not going to fuss about it much if it works. wbm1058 (talk) 13:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T91148

 There is still an open task to consolidate the "date pickers".

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T183107

 @George Ho: FYI. After letting this settle in for several months, I'm still not satisfied with its behavior. I've entered a new Phabricator task. wbm1058 (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:AR-15 (disambiguation)

Can you look into the "Update Redirect" discussion on the Talk:AR-15 (disambiguation) page. I don't like where User:Shaded0 is taking this discussion.--Limpscash (talk) 05:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Can you look at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#RAF910 discussion where User:Shaded0 is making some very serious accusations. He tried to ping you but I don't think it worked.--Limpscash (talk) 06:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent articles on the noticeboard page and the talk page discussions. I am at a bit of a loss on what the correct action should be taken next. The stated points seem to be reasonable arguments, but I feel like this argument is going to keep going in circles. Take a look also at Talk:Colt AR-15. Does it make sense continue pursing AR-15 arguments, seek additional input? I feel like I might have not too much to add here besides another vote for consensus, but any further discussion seems that it will likely further inflame opinions rather than coming to some sort of resolution. Shaded0 (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Shaded0, I'm not sure what your goals are here, i.e. specifically what you would like to accomplish. I added the {{WikiProject content advice}} template at the top of Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms § Guidelines since that advice section co-mingles both style and content advice. My sense is that you are more concerned with content than style, so it might be helpful to spit that section into separate style and content sections, if you want to focus on one but not the other. Looking at Category:WikiProject content advice I see that there are relatively few topic areas where such content-specific advice is given. I think the recent changes to Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms § Criminal use were not well thought out and too-hastily pushed through. I prefer the more longstanding previous version of that advice, and would have opposed this change. I'd like to revert to the former version. I suppose the way to overrule that local consensus would be to appeal to a wider audience with a request for comment. I'm not sure there is a well-trodden path for such appeals; it's something I'm not that familiar with as I don't often engage in high-level content debates. In any event, the Bushmaster XM-15 article still has Notoriety, Sandy Hook, and Legality sections, so if this advice-change was an attempt to remove all that in favor of nothing more than "see also" links, the advice change hasn't stuck in that article. Given that, I'm not sure how much time it's worth to pursue this. wbm1058 (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

HEADS UP!

We are being targeted by someone call Lightbreather on Twitter. Please see the sites below:

https://twitter.com/Lightbreather?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

https://lightbreather.com/wikipedias-promotion-of-pro-gun-lingo-more-about-ar-15-v-modern-sporting-rifle-e3b6a7625621

I'm not sure what to make of this. Is this the same Wikipedia User:Lightbreather that has been blocked?--Limpscash (talk) 06:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I had not seen that blog. I've heard of LB but am not familiar with the details of her block. She says she's a Cronkite School alumna, and I can believe that as it shows in the quality of her blog. I welcome good criticism, and she makes some good points. No comment on the merits of her arbitration case, but, in general it's a shame when we lose editors like this for whatever reason.

Here's the 36 edits I made on November 7 related to this. It's not immediately apparent from that how I became involved in this. I patrol Category:Articles with redirect hatnotes needing review. This 6 November 2017 edit which changed the target of AR-15 caused Colt AR-15 to land in that category by rendering its hatnote {{Redirect|AR-15}} untruthful. When I work that category, I determine how to fix it; usually that's done with only an edit or two – it's an unusual case where I end up making as many as 36 edits to correct a navigation structure that's so badly munged. LB helps explain how it got that way. This was just the beginning of my involvement in this topic area to date. A couple days later, in respose to #Talk:AR-15 (disambiguation), I made 7 more edits. Then a comment that basically wrapped up an AN/I incident.

All of this participation is time-consuming. I'm not exactly happy with the status quo, there seems a strong case that AR-15 has become a genericized trademark, and that "modern sporting rifle" is an invented term designed to forestall that genericization. So LB shouldn't take my edits as an endorsement of the status quo. I'm keeping this on my back burner. wbm1058 (talk) 02:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Please take note

Greetings! I have re-copied your prior comment supporting or opposing the move of Modern sporting rifle to AR-15 style rifle to a new Requested Move section here: Talk:Modern sporting rifle#Requested move 22 February 2018.

I wanted to stop by and give you this courtesy notice, in case you want to add, delete, or amend your comments in any way. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Awwww....

...please don't give up on us, yet. 😞 I know you're busy, and I'm not expecting you to devote a whole lot of time to this project, but your input is highly beneficial and I was hoping you would keep helping us work through some of the kinks when you can, especially regarding admin factors we know little to nothing about. What we're hoping to accomplish will focus primarily on clarification and consistency in our WP:Blocking policy with the ultimate goal being editor retention. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I've had some ideas about this on my back burner. Posting some relevant links here. wbm1058 (talk) 01:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• m:Community health initiative/Measuring the effectiveness of blocks
• User:JamesR/AdminStats (show Blocks)
• Daily counts of blocks and unblocks
• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit/Statistics (CheckUser and Oversight use)

Ha!! I forgot all about this, Wbm1058! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Atsme: It's still on my to-do list, as is replying to your email! Eventually... I keep a lot of burners going on my giant stove, alas some I have to keep down low for a long time. But I let other ppl cook my Thanksgiving dinner ;) wbm1058 (talk) 01:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Somewhat related to this, i.e. the area of community health and dealing with behavioral issues, is Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log. Something I haven't really paid much attention to.

There's a helpful search box at the top of that page. "Enter a username into this box to check if they have been sanctioned." e.g. Hmm. DUE, BALANCE, NPOV, RS talk. Followup. More followup. I'll try to help resolve this if I can. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh my. wbm1058 (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello wbm

Hi Wbm, hope you're doing well. I noticed you declined the move I had requested. I have initiated a discussion at Talk:Synchronised_swimming#Making Artistic swimming the primary article for any opposes to the proposed move. I shall contact you again in a week or so if there's no opposition. Warmly, Lourdes 03:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

TOC experiments

I tried putting it after the first paragraph. That seems to be the best look. Free-roaming horse management in North America Lynn (SLW) (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

English Heritage lists breaking transclusion limits

Scheduled monuments in Mendip

Thanks for your fixes on Scheduled monuments in Mendip. I don't quite understand the code of what you are doing but if it is about the number of reference templates breaking the maximum size, would your fix work on Grade II* listed buildings in South Somerset where the last few references don't display - possibly for the same reason?— Rod ^talk 08:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rod, yes, similar issues there, though InternetArchiveBot hasn't visited that page recently. There is a discussion about the solution to this at User talk:cyberpower678/Archive 60#English Heritage website changed the URL syntax for accessing its site database. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

New problem reported at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Historic sites#Recent template changes broke a few list-type articles, recommend splitting them to fix the problem – wbm1058 (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Re: Your edit at Template:English Heritage listed building row

In regards to the edit you made at Special:Diff/974562485, the fact that the module output is transcluded by Template:English Heritage listed building row not only means that invoking the module directly matters, it actually means that it matters twice as much! Per Wikipedia:Template_limits#Nested_transclusions, any bytes produced by the module will be counted once if {{#invoke:delink|delink}} is invoked directly, they will be counted twice if {{delink}} is used to call {{#invoke:delink|delink}}, and they will be counted four times if {{English Heritage listed building row}} calls {{delink}} which calls {{#invoke:delink|delink}}. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 00:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Bill of rights page

Thank you for the changes you made to the hatnote on the Bill of rights article. I think it looks perfect! Rockstonetalk to me! 18:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

How about a Wikipedia Editors' Bill of Rights? wbm1058 (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

With the current situation with Fram, that sounds like a great idea. . Rockstonetalk to me! 19:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Mass removal of cleanup tags

Hello. I noticed that you recently removed a large number of {{cleanup}} tags dating back over 10 years. As you noted, these tags were indeed stale, and didn't have reasons listed, but I would say that in most of those cases, the need for cleanup was completely obvious from a cursory glance at the rest of the article. As the blurb for the "Articles needing cleanup" category states: "If you're sure the article has been cleaned up, addressing any obvious flaws as well as any specific problems mentioned on the talk page, feel free to remove the tag. There's not much harm in leaving it on if you aren't certain what to do; the tag will alert someone else to come by later and check up on the article." I spend most of my time on wiki working through these articles trying to sort them out, and without those tags, the article are now "on the loose" in the wikipedia with no warning for readers of their poor quality or way of editors finding them to address their problems. Please bear in mind before deleting any more that editors do actually use these tags and categories. Cheers. Jdcooper (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jdcooper, OK. Here are my relevant 34 edits. I removed a total of 31 {{cleanup}} tags. I did notice that several had been proposed for deletion, and I suppose by removing the tags I'm keeping them from someone else noticing them and putting a PROD tag on the top. Not sure why anyone would want to spend much time to cleanup up a page that was proposed for deletion. I did make a few obvious fixes, but feel free to review them, and if you restore the template and add a reason to it, please also update the date to the current month, which will clear them out of the back end of the queue. I also noticed that in the talk archives the possibility of using a bot to remove these tags had been discussed. But, I'll move on for now to resume working on my more usual tasks, and maybe check back in on this later. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, but the problem is articles like Dick Brooks (magician) where the creator has now removed the PROD tag and a horrible mess of an article is left untagged. I've gone through and added more specific tags to the ones with obvious problems, but I feel like dumping them in the July 2019 cohort (though that is what I've done) will just leave them unloved for even longer. The reason I poke about in this area of the encyclopaedia is specifically to find the long-term worst articles. But there are always plenty more repositories of such articles, obviously! Have a nice day. Jdcooper (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

This backlog still seems to be growing faster than it's getting cleared. Category:Articles needing cleanup from December 2008, which is where I was working in July, was deleted in October 2019, and I just coincidentally found that Category:Articles needing cleanup from January 2009 was ready for deletion. So this has been getting cleared at a rate substantially slower than one per month. On to February 2009. wbm1058 (talk) 05:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in April 1917

Re your edits to remove the list of shipwrecks in April 1917 from the template limit exceeded category, probably the easiest way is by replacing {{flagcountry|UKGBI|civil}} with [[File:Civil Ensign of the United Kingdom.svg|22px]] [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland|United Kingdom]]. This produces the same result visually. The UK civil flag is likely to be the most used in any shipwreck list at least until the 1950s, so changing the flag removes a large number of templates and guards against the list subsequently falling into the category again. AFAIK, no other shipwreck lists fall into the template limit exceeded category, but if you do come across any others, give me a shout and I'll fix the issue. Mjroots (talk) 07:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mjroots: I don't know about that being the "easiest way". To unpack {{flagcountry}} I needed to make a series of three substitutions, which left behind a bunch of programming logic (#if and #ifeq statements) transcluded into the article (see my recent edits to List of shipwrecks in April 1917). It's not immediately clear whether making your suggested edit loses any of that embedded functionality, though it seems not. Whereas by simply bypassing a template shell that transcludes the output of a Lua module, I'm guaranteed not to lose any embedded functionality. I think the "best" solution would be to rewrite at least some of the template logic into a Lua module, and someday I'll get around to becoming more proficient with Lua so I can more readily do that.

But there's more than one way to get the job done. Feel free to revert my edits and solve the issue another way, if you feel that's better. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree that there's often more than one way to get the job done. As I understand it, there is a finite number of templates that can be used in an article. Not sure of the number but being computer code it's probably a power of 2 (1,024, 2,048, 4,096 etc). Changing the flags in the way I described does remover a larg number of templates from the article. I'll not revert your changes as they had the desired effect, but I feel that the article is probably still very near the template limit. Should it fall into the category again, then we'll change the flags. Mjroots (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mjroots: FYI. There are several technical limits. The limit this article hit was the Post-expand include size. Currently the article includes (transcludes) 2,007,669 bytes, and the limit is 2,097,152 bytes. So yes, it is still close to the limit. You can see this in Show preview, under "Parser profiling data" (help) – you may need to click on that if it isn't showing by default. wbm1058 (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Now 2,044,834 of 2,097,152 bytes – wbm1058 (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The system is timing out with an error message when I try to see the diff of my edit, but I see that {{coord}} was transcluded 242 times; I believe I replaced those, e.g. {{coord|48|20|N|6|00|W}} with {{#invoke:Coordinates|coord|48|20|N|6|00|W}}. There is no difference in output: 48°20′N 6°00′W vs. 48°20′N 6°00′W – wbm1058 (talk) 14:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

And now it appears that four more shipwecks have been added to the list, transcluding {{coord}} rather than directly invoking the module. wbm1058 (talk) 14:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Category:Redirects from incorrect disambiguation

Note to myself. On my back burner is to followup on the purpose for Category:Redirects from incorrect disambiguation. See the edit history of Assassin (movie). Also User talk:Anomie/linkclassifier#Some suggestions. Hopefully will follow up on this a few moons from now, after working through several higher-priority tasks. wbm1058 (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

LinkClassifier

I saw your complaints at User talk:IJBall#Please fix these links immediately, and I wanted to let you know that this should work for you:

mw.hook( 'LinkClassifier' ).add( function ( linkClassifier ) {
    // Delete the "incorrect-title" code
    delete linkClassifier.cats['incorrect-title'];

    // Add the "linked-misspellings" and "linked-miscapitalisations" codes, with appropriate categories.
    linkClassifier.cats['linked-misspellings'] = [
        'Category:Redirects from misspellings'
    ].sort();
    linkClassifier.cats['linked-miscapitalisations'] = [
        'Category:Redirects from miscapitalisations'
    ].sort();
} );
importScript('User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js'); // Linkback: [[User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js]]

Anomie⚔ 00:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe one day in P.R.

	Biked in 50 states!
	https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqdkqABDETY Hoping one day you make it to P.R. - Jose Valiente (radio MC) and bike shop owner's son- can hook you up- just need a translator. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Ohio Wikimedians User Group: May 2020 newsletter

Newsletter is archived at m:Ohio Wikimedians User Group/Newsletter (m:Ohio Wikimedians User Group/Newsletter/2020/May

List of GANs per nominator

Hi Wbm1058, I hope you are well. About this topic, did we get any further with this? I feel like it was a bit forgotten and archived, but I'd be very interested in continuing to find a full list of GANs by nominators. I'd love to help get something like this off the ground (I should be a little bit closer to the top 40 now, I've promoted another 30 or so since the discussion)! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Lee I lost momentum on this and let it drift to my back burners. I'll keep it on my to-do list and try to get back to it. Juggling a lot of balls, as usual, and as you can see from the sections above, new requests for my time keep coming in, making it harder to stay focused on more time-intensive projects. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Not an issue. I thought about it earlier, and I didn't know if anyone was actively looking at it or not. I've also been busy, so haven't had much time for much! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

GANs

Hi Wbm1058, you did some great work in listing GAs per user a while back. I wondered if you'd consider doing it again and/or doing it periodically? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski and The Rambling Man: – I'm running a new report now, using the last version of my PHP program from 26 July 2020. I started one last night, and it almost completed but died because the drive-by editor Sai5839448 put Category:Lists of good articles back into Category:Good articles, after I had previously removed it. A category is neither an article nor a Good Article. I removed the category and restarted my program from the beginning, and hopefully it will generate a report several hours from now. It will still have the inaccuracies I have yet to get around to addressing, but perhaps is "good enough" for your purposes. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, thank you. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 17:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Great work - it's certainly a start, and good for rough amounts. :) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Lee Vilenski and The Rambling Man: Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#List of Wikipedians by number of Good articles, as of 17 November 2020 – wbm1058 (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• This is some great work! I was wondering why this credits me with 88, but I credit myself with 96, but then I realised it isn't including articles that went through GA and later became FAs. This seems like a sensible conclusion, but worth mentioning.

For me, the next point would be how we go from here, to a full list similar to user:GA bot/Stats lists reviews done by user. This would be with the view to have a bot maintain a full list similar to how Legobot does now. At least with a full list, we can identify the GAs with issue nominators, and come to a conclusion as to whom should be credited; and get a pseudo-definative list.

Once again though, fantastic work, I'm very happy to see this. I'll try my best to move up the order a bit! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

List of Wikipedians by good article nominations

Hi! Remember our conversation at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_24#List of Wikipedians by number of Good articles, as of 17 November 2020? I was wondering if any follow-up has happened after that? I see Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by good article nominations is still a red link. I recently wrote some code (using the Wikimedia Eventstreams API) to easily keep such lists up-to-date (by listening to additions/removals of {{good article}} from articles, so that there is no need to regenerate the whole thing on every run). So if you don't mind should I file a bot request to turn that link blue? Just wanted to make sure I haven't missed any further developments on this. – SD0001 (talk) 15:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@SD0001: no, I haven't done any more work on this since November. Go ahead and file your bot request. Maybe some time I'll try to improve my code to make the look-ups more efficient as you suggested so I can double-check your results. But I still have more tasks on my to-do list than time to do them all. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

User:SDZeroBot, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SDZeroBot 11. Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by good article nominations looks nice! wbm1058 (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Linked misspellings and miscapitalizations, and alternatives

Error?

Why should this result in an error per Special:Diff/913468459/977902992? What was that change trying to accomplish? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@MJL: It's telling you not to put that template on that page, because Nira Tandon, which I just tagged with {{R from misspelling}}, is not an article, it's a redirect. Template:R from remote talk page is only intended for placement on redirects to centralized talk pages, i.e. Talk pages where the content of multiple articles is discussed. There are just a few pages tagged this way: see here For example, the content of the article List of Intel Pentium M (Yonah)-based Xeon microprocessors is discussed on Talk:List of Intel Xeon processors rather than Talk:List of Intel Pentium M (Yonah)-based Xeon microprocessors, which is where the template is placed. – wbm1058 (talk) 05:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

[Thank you for the ping] Okay, well can you clarify that in the template documentation at least? The difference between {{R from remote page}} and {{R for convenience}} has always been kind of hazy for me because it isn't really explained anywhere. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much ...

... for all of the effort you put into cleaning up Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked misspellings. For a long time, I had kept track of the litterally millions of items that I always skipped over when patrolling the list, so it's quite a pleasant surprise to see a compact list of items that can actually be fixed. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I try to drop by now & then to clear out the more troublesome items there, as I juggle the many tasks jockeying for my attention. A longer-term project of mine is to get Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations down to manageable size as well, but just when I feel like I've made some real progress there I find more litter has been dumped on that pile. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

If I see one I'll fix it, but you've just moved it from one disam page to another, why not fix the disam use at the same time ? SydGaz|SydGazandAdv ?? Dave Rave (talk) 07:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Dave Rave, I have no idea what you're talking about or what prompted you to make that comment which is your first edit in two weeks. Please explain. Oh, after noting that you're Australian, I think you mean Sydney Gazette ← The Sydney Gazette And New South Wales Advertiser. An Australian editor apparently doesn't understand that "and" shouldn't be capitalized in newspaper titles. Sorry, I still don't understand what your issue with my edit(s) is though. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'm Australian, and I do understand, you must be a wiki editor and don't. you've just moved it from one disam page to another. that's a hard line to comrprehend
The trouble with Trove is they don't listen when I try to tell them things like why bother providing a link to a ref that has incorrect details. But when a wiki editor trying to fix things some can't see that using a disam pag isn't the best idea and why not fix it can't see the logic in the offerering ...
click your link you provided to the SydGazAndNSWAdv and look at it, it's a disam page Dave Rave (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@Dave Rave: The Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser is not a disambiguation page, it is a redirect. The Sydney Gazette And New South Wales Advertiser is another redirect. I used Template:No redirect to link to them so you can see the actual redirect pages. Sorry, I'm still not finding the disam page you're trying to direct me to. I have noticed that a lot of Australian articles use Trove for a reference; that's a very nice database! – wbm1058 (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

United Kingdom

Hi WBM, can you please stop adding "the" before United Kingdom in infoboxes? We use short country names per ISO-3166. Hope you can revert all these edits, too. Cheers, — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: List of political parties in United Kingdom was declared to be a high-priority misspelling by WT79. Perhaps they are willing to revert my edits since they decided to take on an executive role and demand that I "fix" this non-problem. Or maybe you can move List of political parties in the United Kingdom to remove the "the" which is not in conformance with ISO-3166. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I didn't refer to that article. I meant your mass edits to infoboxes of ~160 different articles over the last 2.5 hours. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I understand that. The purpose of my edits was to bypass the redirect from the "misspelling" that WT79 could not tolerate, in order to clear this item from Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked misspellings. Evidently they ran into one of these in an infobox. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, this sounds a bit odd to me, I'm not seeing any connection between WT79's list and parameter values in infoboxes. Anyhow, would you mind self-reverting that? — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

What exactly did I break by making those edits (please explain how it was broken). The infobox links now directly go to List of political parties in the United Kingdom rather than via a redirect from the alleged "misspelling" List of political parties in United Kingdom. I need a reassurance from WT79 that they won't revert my edit which reverted theirs. wbm1058 (talk) 00:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd rather move on to fixing more things which are broken than fixing something that isn't. wbm1058 (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: Sorry – didn't think about standard title forms when adding that rcat. Thanks for reverting. WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 08:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Soda-lime glass

At Soda-lime glass, regarding incorrect and alternative. I don't dispute that in the broadest sense, the hyphen/endash thing is an alternative, but I mark it as incorrect for this reason: per the style guide, the hyphen is not the correct way. It is in need of correction to the endash. Marking it as such will allow an intrepid editor to follow those links and make the corrections in the articles where it is used incorrectly. In the same way that typos and other misspellings are, broadly speaking, alternative ways of writing a word, But they are marked as misspellings (errors needing correction) to facilitate the ongoing improvement of our encyclopedia.

I have not made the change back to incorrect, because if my understanding of the usage of incorrect punctuation is wrong, I'd like to know that before foolishly asserting I must be right. I have tried to think of examples where the punctuation is truly incorrect and not alternative. Perhaps a question mark, asterisk, or other non-dashy line would be incorrect, but such redirects would be deleted as not being useful or necessary. The only ones worth keeping are those that have a similarity in form or function.

I write too much now, so I'll stop. Plus the call from the kitchen comes that dinner is ready. I value your response. Senator2029 ❮talk❯ 23:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Senator2029: Flagging it as a linked misspelling pushes it into the highest-priority work queue – note that there are 28 items in today's report, and every one of them has been fixed already, except the item you prioritized. "what links here" to "Soda-lime glass" It is not necessary to mark these to "allow an intrepid editor to follow those links and make the corrections". As I said in my edit summary, feel free to fix those 54 links yourself before you mark it. If you do it in that order, then I won't notice, and won't be bothered. The editor(s) who routinely clear away the linked-misspellings take care of the easy ones, and leave behind the "hard stuff" for someone more experienced to take care of (that would be me, see #Thank you very much ... above). My second-level priority list is the linked miscapitalizations, which has been a bear to tame, as people keep dumping more heaps of marginal miscapitalizations onto that pile. If I ever get that one down to size and have the luck to find a volunteer to keep it under control, then I might turn my attention to the hyphens and dashes. Right now they are so low priority that I don't see myself getting to them any time soon, if ever. Unless you want them to be fixed by a bot and can get a consensus to do that, then I might be willing to write and operate the bot. Then our armies of executive-level editors could force the bot to edit-war with itself by edit-warring over whether to "R from hyphen" or "R from en dash". – wbm1058 (talk) 00:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Module:Adjacent stations/Busan Metro

The Busan Metro module shouldn't be linking to Dongdaegu Station; wrong system? Mackensen (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Mackensen, yes, I guessed wrong; I reverted my edit that didn't fix it for me. The rail template systems are highly complex, making it a very annoying and time-consuming task to fix miscapitalized links to rail stations. So I guess it's Template:S-line. How do I fix

Template:Korail stations

toward Template:Korail stations

so that it links directly to Dongdaegu Station rather than the {{R from miscapitalisation}} Dongdaegu station? wbm1058 (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Wbm1058, it's Korail that has it wrong, so you'll want {{Korail stations}}. Mackensen (talk) 23:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mackensen: Thanks. THIS was the edit I intended to make earlier. It worked (on e.g. Gijang station). – wbm1058 (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Also needed to edit {{KSR stations}} – wbm1058 (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Philip Kitcher edit

It makes no difference to me, but I'm curious why you made your most recent edit to the link to "Secular Humanism." Since Secular Humanism automatically jumps to Secular humanism, what is wrong with leaving it as Secular Humanism?Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I did that to clear the link from the Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations report. It was there because User:WurmWoode marked it as a miscapitalization with this 29 December 2018 edit. The alternative would be to revert WurmWoode's edit. You will note that there are a lot of uses of title case on that list and I wish other editors were less hardcore about marking such things as flat-out wrong in all usage on Wikipedia ({{R from miscapitalisation}}) rather than simply cases of {{R from other capitalisation}}. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I made that edit according to the body of the article, as well as the very text of the Declaration, the only capitalization occurs when secular begins a sentence— it seems akin to discussing a good christian versus the Christian religion. Correct me if I am wrong. WurmWoode^T 10:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Your explanation is over my head, but that's ok. The more important question is, in general as opposed to in this specific instance, when linking a phrase to its Wikipedia entry, if the capitalization in the Wikipedia entry is different, is it necessary to do what you did even though the link takes you to the Wikipedia entry without doing what you did?Maurice Magnus (talk) 09:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Maurice Magnus:Is it necessary to change John A. MacDonald to John A. Macdonald or Lebron James to LeBron James, or should we not care whether a person's name is capitalized differently than in the article title of their biography? If we don't care about that then we can eliminate the Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations report and ask editors to work on something different. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@MZMcBride: Can Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations/Configuration be tweaked to disregard cases where the linked miscapitalization is not actually displayed to the reader but is just piped to different text? I could play with the SQL in Quarry to try to make that happen but you can probably do that faster than it would take me to figure it out. FYI, THIS is my edit which was questioned above. wbm1058 (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Not fixing it

Hi, wbm1058, I hope you are keeping well in these dangerous times? I saw this edit (I watch a number of dog articles), and wondered a little. Doesn't our advice here suggest that we avoid by-passing redirects? Anyway, just to let you know that I've moved the target page back to Dogo Cubano, the same capitalisation as all our other dog breed articles. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:40, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: as a fellow sysop you should have noticed the history of the redirect that you moved over the top of. Actually I should have looked at that myself:

• at 13:57, 20 February 2020 SMcCandlish moved page Dogo Cubano to Dogo cubano (MOS:LIFE, MOS:FOREIGN; this is not a Standardized breed name in English, so lower-case.)
• and, edit of 13:57, 20 February 2020 tagged the redirect as {{R from incorrect capitalization}} which declares this form to be a flat-out, blatant error demanding to be fixed, as a high priority.

Tagging it with {{R from other capitalization}} puts it in the "DONOTFIXIT" category.

So your issue is with Mr. McCandlish, not me. Though had I noticed it was him who tagged it, I probably would have wanted to double-check for a consensus on the matter.

I'm rather annoyed at the clan of editors who are so sure of themselves that they fail to recognize potentially controversial moves when they see them, and act boldly rather than starting a discussion. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Should remain lower-case, since it's Spanish, and cubano (like other adjectives derived from proper names) is not capitalized in Spanish; and we have zero evidence of this ever being established as a standardized, formalized breed with such a name, rather than simply being a landrace of dogs common at one time on Cuba. This is the same kind of case as people wanting to over-capitalize "Roman War Dog" on the WP:OR hypothesis that it's a breed in the modern sense. The only reason we capitalize modern standardized breeds (and took years of squabbling and a WP:VPPOL RfC to even permit that exception to MOS:LIFE) is because the authoritative sources on them, the written breed standards that establish them in the first place, do so. Such breeds are akin to published works. If there is no written breed standard for some extinct variety, then there is no basis for capitalizing it (especially not against standard usage in the actual language of the phrase).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Can "Incorrect" names be "printworthy"?

• Forkknife and Fork Knife – note to myself to follow up on THIS someday... avoiding this rabbit hole for now. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Template talk:Football squad player

Further information: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell § Other

Hi, in your opinion what's missing for the merge to go on? Is there anything that should be dealt with? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I took some time off from this task to wait for any possible response to my work so far, and to catch up on my usual work queues. I'm back on this now. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to revert you on the template, but I've started a discussion on the talk page on what form of country name to use. Thanks for all the work you've been doing on this though. Cheers, Number 57 22:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Template Parameters : Football squad player

I noticed your edit to User:Bamyers99/TemplateParametersTool. Wanted to let you know that the March parameter report is ready. There is a new link for the pos parameter called errors which takes you to the error list. --Bamyers99 (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Bamyers99, your tool is really nice. I have a question: why isn't Cheng Fung on that list? |pos=DF,MF isn't one of the four valid valures for {{{pos}}}. wbm1058 (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

That page plus others were not displayed because of a bug. The bug has been fixed. --Bamyers99 (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! What a speedy fix it was too! You're the best! wbm1058 (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Flagicon

@Johnuniq: re: "the ultimate problem appears to be flagicon" – there have been multiple attempts to address this issue:

• Template talk:Flagicon/Archive 1#Template:FlagiconLua started (5 June 2013) – now named Template:Flags
  • "This template provides a clickable icon flag with options to define the size, the link and the label. Its usage is especially recommended in articles with many icon flags. This project is under development." – Development seems to have stalled soon after it started.
• Flagg – Is there a list of pages that are approaching the WP:PEIS limit that haven't converted over to the new module-based {{flagg}} system?
  • "{{Flagg}} (flag general) is a flag template with variable output format. Using Lua instead of the standard mechanism."

My work on this is on hold pending teaching myself more Lua and maybe JavaScript as well. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

How can I help with - Should the template display the table in one or two columns?

Python, Flask, CSS developer here. Unemployed and would love to get my hands dirty and gain some more experience. Would like to improve on the above, and learn more about JS and SQL. I also have an art background, so maybe illustration too. Tamccullough (talk) 14:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tamccullough: I see you were referred to me from the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Regarding the SPLIT table used in the SQUAD sections of the Club manual of style. Our expertise doesn't overlap too much. I don't know any of Python, Flask, CSS, JS and SQL particularly well. I know Wikipedia template coding and PHP. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

See #Template talk:Football squad player above. wbm1058 (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

wbm1058 I'll look into this then - Wikipedia template coding - and see if I can be of any use at some point. Cheers! Tamccullough (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Log for Articles for creation?

...on potential improvements for WikiProject Articles for creation: What is missed? That's probably better answered by more-experienced AfCers, but one thing as an outsider admin I'd very much like is improved data on how drafts flow around the system. A log of all AfC submissions & reviews (accepts & declines); a log of individual reviewers' records (similar to the CSD log of NPPers); more clarity on the project's stats. ETA: I've just found Template:AFC statistics but it needs a proper historical log. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

As another "outsider admin", I'm interested in this too, and have the skills needed to create such a log. Adding this to my potential to-do list. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Wikimedia movement for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wikimedia movement, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikimedia movement until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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 notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

RfA Reform 2021 Phase 2 has begun

Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.

There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Republic of Taiwan (disambiguation)

A tag has been placed on Republic of Taiwan (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:07, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia title cleanup (sorted by template)

Hello, Wbm1058,

This category you created popped up on the nightly Empty Categories list. These categories are typically tagged for deletion in the next day or so but they are almost always content-related categories, not Wikipedia or project-related categories. So, I thought I'd bring this to your attention as I don't know the purpose behind this category and whether it should be filled with pages or whether it is no longer useful and can be tagged CSD C1 and sit in the Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion for a week. Of course, as the page creator, you can delete it if you believe that should be the next step. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Liz. Seems I'm late to that party: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 October 26#Template:Cleanup title. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy to see that alternate universe of templates is gone. – wbm1058 (talk) 04:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Looks like I came to talk to the right person. Thanks for the follow-up. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Now I've discovered Template:Renamed, created last Christmas Eve as a "gift" to the gnomes, and removed that template from the one page that was using it. We whacked a few moles, but not before another one popped out of the ground. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Sidcup School of Art

I disagree with you about mistrusting an institution's own history regarding when it was founded, but British newspapers are hard to search even with a UK local library card, which I haven't got; I tried a Wikipedia Library membership to the British Newspapers Archive for a year but found it absolutely useless, so I don't even have access to that to try. So I've just spent a lot of time trying to establish whether Sidcup Art College was the same institution as Sidcup School of Art.

There are a vast number of book references to the Rolling Stones, other 60s bands, and London in the 60s referring to Sidcup Art College, including Keith Richards' autobiography. But really, just a ton of books. And one Rolling Stones forum page referring to Sidcup Art School.

Outside that focus, there's an equally vast number of references, in books and online artist biographies, to Sidcup School of Art. This includes multiple mentions of its being founded by Cecil Ross Burnett: [2], [3]. This summary from an aggregation site gives an idea of the artists we are failing to connect it to: "This little-known art school was established in 1898 by Cecil Ross Burnett who was for many years its headmaster. While it did produce some fine artists such as the aforementioned Ross Burnett, Wally Fawkes (Trog), Jean Clark, Margaret Thomas and John Titchell arguably its greatest claim to fame that Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones was a student there." We have plain-text mentions at Frederick Cuming (artist), Jean Clark (artist), and Margaret Thomas (painter), and it is the "Sidcup" in Frank Auerbach (he met his wife, Julia, when he taught her there). But the National Archives listing (which refers laconically to the records being at Bexley Local Studies and Archive Centre) is under the heading "Sidcup School of Art, Grassington Road, 1952–1964". This conflicts with not only the 1962 establishment date for Ravensbourne College but with the considerable pre-1952 history of Sidcup School of Art, so I wonder whether it just moved to Grassington Road in 1952?

It's possible the institution either formally or informally became a "college" by the 1960s in response to changing fashions or as part of its jostling for government support; among the Google hits was a mention of a failed attempt to be approved for granting a newly introduced diploma, and a 1978 directory listing has it as a 16+ institution with day and night classes including preparatory (which suits the stage of education at which, for example, Keith Richards went there). An interview with Phil May calls it Sidcup School of Art but attests to its being the institution we and the vast bulk of sources on the Stones and the Pretty Things call Sidcup Art College: snippet 1 and snippet 2. But it's also possible they were rival institutions, or one was a postwar re-foundation; or that the Art College nomenclature got started as a bit of social climbing on the part of someone involved with the Stones mythos and has just established itself by repetition. I would like to see a smidgen of independent sourcing equating the names, like something in the local press from either the 1960s or the development of the site for the supermarket in the oughties, or a use of the "college" name in an independent reliable source referring to the Ravensbourne merger (what was Ravensbourne known as after the merger but before closing its fine arts department in the 1980s? if not Ravensbourne, there may be a search term that would turn up something). If I were confident they are the same, I would have added considerably to the Sidcup Art College article, which only covers the Stones and mentions the Pretty Things, absolutely nothing about the institution itself, and I would have gone on to research Burnett; our article on him is a one-line placeholder. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Wow, what a rabbit hole we've been led to. This source seems as reliable as any I've seen, and it uses both terms "school" and "college". It's probably more reliable than some "true crimes" site, and at least we don't have to worry about whether we might have pointed to the wrong convicted criminal. I myself went to an institution that started out in the late 1800s as a "School", was called "College" when I attended, and is now a "University". Sidcup is an area of south-east London, which I suppose could have been home to multiple art schools, but you'd think if it was then at least some sources would make efforts to {{distinguish}} them. Creating the redirect heads off a possible WP:Content fork. I don't really care to spend much more time on this. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I quite understand :-) I had found and felt a bit iffy about the Artblogs source (I refer to it above as an aggregator and quote from it) when I made my edit to the Ravensbourne page, and I've now mined its record on Wayback and the history of our Ravensbourne article to try to determine whether there was copying in either direction. The site first appears on Wayback in 2012. Its Ravensbourne page hasn't been archived, but Ravensbourne was first added to its list of pages on art schools between 9 November 2017 and 9 November 2018 (the archiving run in September 2018 failed on that page). Our page started off in 2005 with "A three-way merger between the art schools of Bromley, Sidcup and Beckenham in 1962 effectively gave birth to today's College." and had already lost Sidcup from the history during one of several promotional-appearing edits throughout its history, on 28 August 2007. In 2017 and 2018 the discontinuity between the intro and the start of the History section was fairly stable. The "About" page for Artblogs says that it originated as a one-person project based on art books. Whereas the edits to our article that alternate with the promotional ones use an interesting blend of sources: in particular on 16 February 2010 Lonegroover added the furniture design department amalgamation in 1959 and the broadcasting department in 1981, using "the college's and Bromley Council's websites" (but without re-adding the 1962 merger). Several refs have been and gone. One on collaboration with businesses and one on students considering it one of the UK's worst universities are probably no big loss. But this assemblage of transcribed news clippings is highly informative and I'll cite it again alongside Artblogs; it seems clear that although there may have been sources in common, Artblogs has not copied from Wikipedia and does not actually contradict Ravensbourne's own site; it has both the 1962 merger (which it refers to as having happened "[a]bout this time", referring to December 1962) and the 1959 furniture department merger. Also Artblogs clearly equates Sidcup School of Art with Sidcup Art College. They may be wrong on that, but a detail in another source that we formerly had, an oral history record where the recording wasn't accessible to the Wayback bot, suggests my hunch is right about a post-war renaming at Sidcup: "Bromley School of Art which became Bromley College of Art after the war". Ravensbourne was clearly scrambling for spaces to put its teaching departments (and to house its students) as it underwent both increasing enrollment and additions to its course offerings; the Sidcup site presumably continued for several years as a satellite location, coinciding with Keith Richard and the Pretty Boys attending and playing early concerts there. I intend to edit both the Sidcup and the Ravensbourne articles, but with as careful wording as I can manage in case we are conflating 2 institutions based on Artblogs. And I'll need to go through the alumni section at Ravensbourne in case anyone there actually went to one of the precursor institutions; I think there should be a separate sublist on the Ravensbourne list for Bromley. Anyway, those are tasks I've taken on; I in no way mean to imply you should do any of this :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 02:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

... Actually I'm a naïve idiot. Artblogs' initial section, "Ravensbourne, which was formerly Bromley Technical College, was opened in 1959 by the amalgamation of the Bromley School of Art and the Department of Furniture Design of the Beckenham School of Art." is, except for "Ravensbourne," rather than "The institution," word-for-word the same as the wording placed in the intro in an IP edit on 17 August 2011. So Artblogs has copied either from us or from a common source (somewhat unlikely, since Wikipedia's earlier wording began "Ravensbourne was formerly Bromley Technical College, formed in 1959 ..."). Sigh. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

2021 Waukesha Christmas Parade attack

If you'll check it, at the time I tagged that redirect I had just closed a malformed requested move, the title of which had just been moved due to a discussion that had, again at that time, determined that to use "attack" was a BLP issue. So yes, at that time, this was considered an unsuitable title. New facts come out about this very quickly, and at present it might be okay to include "attack" in the title as a COMMONNAME. I don't know, but I do wish you would not attack me on a personal level – "take care not to spam the project..." – over this or any other edits I've made. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 00:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Paine, my bad for letting my frustration boil over. I need to get you up to speed on this task: Linked incorrect names: Quarry query

This is related to Linked misspellings, where we have active help working that beat, and Linked miscapitalizations, where we don't.

For a long time the misspellings list was often maxing out at >1000 items. Most gnome-minded editors find such long work queues to be discouraging. They want the satisfaction of knowing that they're making a difference. They view such lists as 'hopeless' so they don't even try. They find work elsewhere, where they can see the progress they're making. I spent a lot of time virtually single-handed tacking that monster. Only after I got it down to a manageable size did I notice help had finally arrived. Now, today, there's just 25 pages on that list.

I got the miscapitalizations list down to just 27 items as recently as October 27. But alas nobody has appeared there to help me yet, so now it's back up to 151 pages, less than a month later.

I set that aside for a while after I figured out how to generate the "incorrect names" list. There were 1912 pages on the list when I last ran the report on November 5. I just ran it again and now it's at 1927. Items on the list with a lot of links include National Academy of Science, National Register of Historical Places and American Broadcasting Corporation. Chicago University Press should be on that list too, but I understand why someone would want to tag it as a misspelling, as on that list it has more of a chance of being tended to sooner rather than later, given the current 'hopeless' status of "incorrect names".

So "spam" isn't really the right word for this, but, lacking a better term, sorry I used it. Just appealing for you to just tag most redirects from moves as {{R from other name}} unless you're "absolutely sure" that they're wrong. Hint: if a page moved as a result of a week-long RM discussion, odds are the former title wasn't absolutely wrong. Give developing news stories time before passing judgement. But OK, if there are BLP concerns then please do immediately bypass all redirects from the concerning title to the current title, and indicate what the closest alternative "good" title is. wbm1058 (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Goldmark

For example, looking at the German Wikipedia with help from Google translation, on Sep 17th 2013 the page de:Goldmark moved to de:Mark (1871) with reason: "Goldmark is not the official name of the currency of the German Empire from 1871" – an "official name" argument. Seems "Goldmark" is a common name, if not the most common name. The lead sentence of the current version says: The Mark (Mk or ℳ, M in Latin script), retrospectively as "Goldmark called," was the unit of account..." — In other words, German gold mark seems like a valid alternative name or retronym. A quick Google Books search confirms this. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Naarm (disambiguation)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Naarm (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SACO Hardware logo.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:SACO Hardware logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: Ba-Bz

Hello, Wbm1058,

I believe AnomieBot created this redirect with a different kind of dash. This list is actually broken down alphabetically. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:58, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: Yes, I know. This creates an annoying conflict when a list is split. List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: Ba–Bh & List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: Bi–Bz. The bot links from the dash to the en dash to explain/justify why it created that legitimate redirect. Then Paine Ellsworth tags the old redirect as {{R wrongname}} after the list is split, which says that links to that are wrong and should be eradicated. I'm working to clean up these Linked incorrect names. It's easier to just delete these. Some lists are split, then split again, and again and again, which makes for a lot of old redirect clutter. When I catch these quickly (and sometimes even when I don't) I speedy them as "recently created, implausible redirects. The implausibility was introduced the moment the lists are split. I don't want to linger too long on any one of these, as I have, what, 1500+ left to do. – wbm1058 (talk) 04:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!

TheSandDoctor ^Talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, 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:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello…

Do you respond? 2A02:C7F:5640:100:A58D:8D94:79E7:F49D (talk) 00:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)