User:BD2412/Archive - Tools (first 50)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archives
By topic (prior to June 1, 2009):
Articles-1st/Deletion-1st-2d/Law-1st-2d-3d-4th-5th
Misc.-1st-2d-3d-4th/RfA-1st-2d-3d-4th/Tools-1st-2nd-3rd/Vandalism

Dated (beginning June 1, 2009):
001-002-003-004-005-006-007-008-009-010-011-012-013-014-015-016-017-018-019-020-021-022-023-024-025


Template:Lawschool-stub[edit]

Hi - I note your new template for law school stubs. It's a good idea to have such a category, but two things for future reference: 1) there's no point having a stub template if it doesn't link to a specific stub category (I've added one); 2) Stub categories are usually debated before creation at Wikipedia: WikiProject Stub sorting. As I said, in this case it's a good idea for a category, but if you are planning to make any more you should probably run them past WP:WSS first! Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 03:08, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • I've responded on your Talk page.-- 8^D BD2412gab 03:29, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)
Hi again - yes, the categories are the same, but there's a set hierarchy for them to fit into (I've edited the two you mentioned). There are two problems, though. The first is that you'll have to do a null edit on all the articles you've put stubs on in order for them to appear in the categories (Templates behave a bit oddly). The second is more serious - there was already a Template:Honorverse-stub - which was related to the Honor Carrington series of books. This is likely to be a confusing name. In any case, this group of stubs would be covered by org-stub (organisations) or edu-stub (tertiary education).
You might like to go through Category:Africa-related stubs to see what there is related to Uganda worth re-stubbing, too. Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 03:37, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

VfD untransclusions[edit]

Since you've taken an interest in helping to untransclude the really long discussions from the main VfD page, we should talk about the mechanics. The technique you are using - replacing the text right on the log page - will cause user:AllyUnion's VfD bot to fail to move the articles properly from VfD to VfD/Old. The preferred technique is to:

  1. edit the transclusion link on the VfD day page from {{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/PAGENAME}} to {{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/PAGENAME/temp}}
  2. Save the page then go back and find the link (which is now a redlink)
  3. Paste your header and explanation about the untransclusion on this /temp page. (If you ever need it, I keep a copy of that text on my user page.)

When the VfD period runs out, the bot ports the /temp page over properly. When the deciding admin finally closes the discussion, he/she will (hopefully) re-transclude the discussion onto the archive page. Thanks again for your help. We just want to make sure the bot keeps running correctly each night. Rossami (talk) 02:13, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My personal rule of thumb is about 5 screens (7 on my work computer because the screen's narrower). The rule we tossed around at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Maintenance was "whenever you start to think you need a scorecard to keep track of the players" but that page never really got adopted. It's pretty rare that we need to untransclude. I'm not sure why the recent spate. Rossami (talk) 02:22, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Safety tip[edit]

There's a nasty bug in MediaWiki: if you edit a section, save it, get back an error and resubmit, there's a good chance the entire article from that section on will be duplicated. This is what happened at Wikipedia:Unusual articles. This is easily fixed (well, the duplication; the bug is still unresolved, I'm afraid), but there's also an easy way to avoid: if you get back an error that the server "gave no response", open the article history in a new tab or window instead. If it shows your edit, you can ignore the error. If not, you can resubmit.

Or, of course, if you don't have all day, just resubmit and someone will come along and fix it. Cheers! JRM · Talk 16:58, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

Substubs[edit]

Hi - just wondering, since I see you are one of the few people still using {{substub}} what you think of proposals for its demise? There are currently no substubs, since almost everything that was in the category was more likely to be expanded by giving it a more specific stub tempate. Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 05:34, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Userfy template[edit]

hi. i had a go at making a userfy template for the newbie vanity pages we keep getting.

do you think we should use it in future? make changes to it? thanks. Nateji77 05:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I think we should encourage them to move it to their user page, but aside from that userfy/delete and delete/userfy is the same to me. Nateji77 14:24, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Temporary Bug workaround[edit]

Hi, I saw just your message about it taking days to check your list, due to the bug...

I haven't tried this yet myself, but here's something I just read from another user:

As a temporary work-around, you can copy your entire list of articles to a new user subpage, make all the article titles links, then click "related changes".

Cheers, Codex Sinaiticus 1 July 2005 19:15 (UTC)

Queen[edit]

Thanks so much, that was driving me crazy! Mark 8 July 2005 16:36 (UTC)

Actually started "British" at the beginning of the week but got a bit disillusioned! Taking another stab at it. Mark 8 July 2005 19:06 (UTC)

Disambiguation link repair[edit]

  1. Changing the wiki in talk pages, especically in the case of Talk:Holy Saturday where the wik was pointing to a page deliberately chosen to make the point, is highly questionable.
  2. In what conceivable sense of the word is it "disambuigation link repair" to change the link to a redirect page that points to the page originally linked to?! That's absurd! How is is supposed to help anything? Csernica 01:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
I see. Sorry if I seemed a bit snarky. I was having some trouble in the main article over this very link, and this appeared to be of a piece with it. Clearly it was not. Csernica 01:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

About Copyvios[edit]

FYI, when you catch one of these, you need to also remove the text violation – which I have done at How Europeans came to dominate the world. Anyone who is curious can then examine the history of the page. But I agree, this is a clear copyright violation. – llywrch 17:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Quizbowl[edit]

Refactored now, is this better? Radiant_>|< 14:14, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Copy/paste to MS word, use blanket (and wildcarded) search/replace functions followed by paragraph sort, then paste back :) Radiant_>|< 15:44, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Duplicate sections[edit]

The instructions on Wikipedia:Duplicated sections ask that if there is no actual duplication, you underline the line rather than striking it out. This is so that the information can be used to reduce false positives in the future. However, be aware that the list was generated from the June 26 database dump. The one you marked with the edit summary "no duplication apparent in this one" was duplicated, it had just been fixed in the meantime. – Cyrius| 05:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the tips, I'll check the histories henceforth. Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 14:59, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

RE:disambiguation[edit]

Ah, thanks for the disambiguation. I'm still getting accustomed to wikipedia's editing system.Trilemma 13:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard working disambiguation efforts[edit]

You caught my folly on Prescott Farm. Thank you. – Ambush Commander(Talk) 14:35, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Template:MiniAWFP[edit]

Nicely done with the shrinkage! -- BD2412 talk 02:39, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. I was trying to get it small enough to work on the Community Portal, but I'm still having trouble fitting it into the layout. Ah, well. – Beland 18:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Current Disambiguation Collaboration[edit]

Are we going to make "American" a redirect to American (disambiguation)? This would really change the Current Disambiguation Collaboration at Dab's with links. I think before the collaboration is chosen next time, we should fix up any redirects first. --Commander Keane 07:02, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • I was thinking that we would make "American" redirect to United States, with a note at the top of the United States page that American redirects there, and directing readers to American (disambiguation) for other uses. See NBA, for an example. It would cut the job down to finding those relative few links that should not point to United States. -- BD2412 talk 07:11, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Should we do this now? I just think some users will jump right in with the collaboration, doing lots of work that will be done by your suggestion. --Commander Keane 07:21, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • I think the issue should be raised on the project talk page. With about 5,000 links left to disambiguate, it would save a lot of work. -- BD2412 talk 07:25, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Dormant articles[edit]

Hi there, I've responded to your question on my talk page. Enchanter 21:04, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Long-dormant files[edit]

I'd like to generate a list of long-dormant files, e.g. those that have had no edits in over a year (or maybe several lists sorted by length of dormancy). My theory is that long-untouched files must either already be done (unlikely), or may have been forgotten and possibly fallen out of date. I also suspect that there may be many one-time posting of notes on anon user pages that can be done away with altogether. I lack the technical capacity to generate any kind of list, tho - can you guide me on this? Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 14:52, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • Hi, sorry to have bothered you over this. Someone pointed out that Special:Ancientpages does something like this (although only in the article space). -- BD2412 talk 17:45, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh, quite alright. I'm glad to discover that there's already a reasonable list. Generating one from an offline database dump would require a lot of disk space, and I don't have scripts handy to deal with non-current versions of articles. – Beland 04:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Mini template[edit]

I never could really understand what the cowbell was about, but your Template:MiniAWFP - pure genius. Thank you. --Commander Keane 16:55, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation of "British" in Penda of Mercia[edit]

The article is referring to the Celtic peoples who were eventually reduced to Wales and Cornwall. "British" is the usual historical term you see for them for the period in question. Everyking 03:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

At the British disambig page, it's the last ("ethnological") of the meanings given. Everyking 03:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Most wanted articles[edit]

Hello, Beland! Wikipedia:Most wanted articles is running out of articles that the average user can address (mostly British Rail class articles remain). Can you generate a new list? -- BD2412 talk 16:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, though I'm waiting for a new database dump to be completed. I hear on IRC that one is currently in progress, so hopefully we'll be able to get updated reports of many kinds in the next few days. – Beland 02:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation[edit]

Are you intending to change all Britain or British to United Kingdom? They are not synonymous. See British Isles (terminology). I think it's very wrong to add these links to other people's comments on talk pages and make it appear that were referring to the UK when they might not have been. Angela. 03:28, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I was just worried you were running some sort of bot and changing all of them without checking. Angela. 09:36, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

What links here count[edit]

At the dab's with links page your mentionaed that you re-counted American, How did you do that? --Commander Keane 04:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

  • The hard way - went screen by screen, 500 at a time, until I could go no further, then counted 141 remaining links. -- BD2412 talk 04:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I've written a script that does the job the easy way (via computer), but it considers articles with a ":" in the title to be non-MAIN namespace. Do you think this is an acceptable error and that I could update the counts at Dab's with links using the script? By the way, it calculates American to be 4606 now. --Commander Keane 05:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Category:Woodworking machine[edit]

I have put it up for speedy deletion. It is now empty and articles have been recategorised to Category:Woodworking machines as per your suggestion on the User talk:SilentC page. If you are an administrator, please go ahead and delete the page.Luigizanasi 05:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your prompt action - I'm not an admin, but I'm sure one will take care of this quickly, as we have many now. -- BD2412 talk 11:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


RfD[edit]

No problem, glad to help. Noel (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Lists of songs[edit]

I am writing because you contributed to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Lists of songs. I have made a policy proposal at User:Wahoofive/Lists of songs and would welcome your comments. —Wahoofive (talk) 03:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Templates with red links[edit]

Oh great guru, I climb the mountain to ask: would it be possible to generate a list of templates containing red links? Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 13:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

  • A list is brewing now, based on the 9 Sep 2005 database dump. There is another DB dump in progress now, though might take a few days before I have a list ready from that one. (The list does not check whether parameterized links are valid, BTW.) Is there anywhere in particular I should post this? Out of curiosity, why was it requested? – Beland 08:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    • It would help to sort out most wanted articles mentioned in text as opposed to transclusions. Also, redlinks in templates tend to be part of a series of similar articles, and can be easy to fill in once the context of the link is apparent. -- BD2412 talk 12:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Your patience has been rewarded with Wikipedia:Templates with red links. Turns out there are a lot of red links on templates. – Beland 03:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Unprotection request[edit]

I can't tell why Image:Beatles-singles-the-long-and-winding-road-1.jpg is protected (no history of vandalism on the page that I can see), but I need to do a blank save on it to get rid of a pesky disambig false positive from its template. Can you unprotect it? Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 15:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Since there didn't appear to be any readily apparent reason why this image was being protected, I've unprotected and added it to my list of watched items, just in case. Best regards, Hall Monitor 17:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Your welcome template...[edit]

...is very cool, but I think if I were a newbie, I'd be confused as to whether "Journalist" (as it appears at the top) was a username or some kind of automatic welcoming bot (now there's an idea"). Also, why does the template contain a template? You could have just as easily copied the text of the {{welcome}} template into your own. Just curious. Cheers! ~~| BD2412 talk 14:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. You know, Ive had the problem before when others thought that I was a bot that automatically welcomes new users. In my old welcome message, I had to write a small note telling that person that I was 100% real. In addition, the template in my template is a bit lazy huh? Ill write it over ASAP (maybe in the evening, Im now at school, using one of the computers in the library —talk about being addicted to Wikipedia :)). Ill include my personal welcome message. Maybe then I can let people know that Im real. Thanks again for the note. Journalist talk 15:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

I like delinking disambiguation pages and have delinked over 100 pages since you told me about the project. I worked on Egyptions. The articles in the maintenance section are almost as bad as the articles in the main links section. So we aren't really anywhere near 80% done. Thanks for showing me this.

Prodego talk 02:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Your message[edit]

OK, understood now! Thanks for the input and sorry about making your work harder... Charlie 09:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

No problem - happy editing!  BD2412 talk 15:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/Challenge[edit]

The Challenge seemed so promising but with just two people signed up I don't think the community is ready for it. I guess we should put a notice on top of the page saying that the idea has been shelved, and try again in the distant future. Shame, it was a great idea. --Commander Keane 04:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I get the feeling that the Project is something of an unpopulated ghost town, but you could try posting a note there.--Commander Keane 05:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Dab's with links[edit]

I considered fixing Author as progress, do you mind? Thanks for creating the Guide, I was thinking about making that page soon.--Commander Keane 05:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Page move.[edit]

Fixed. There is a way for admins to move selected edits to a seperate page (keeping edit summaries and everything), but I haven't figured out how quite yet. If you want me to do that and do the move to keep the edit history that's fine, but I've seen alot of cut/paste archives, so I don't think it should be that big of a problem. -Greg Asche (talk) 03:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I think I've figured out how to archive it while saving the history. If you want me to, I'll be happy too, but I'd have to delete your archive (again). -Greg Asche (talk) 03:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Okay, no problem. -Greg Asche (talk) 03:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Kate's Tool[edit]

It's odd, it went down shortly before my 30,000th edit too. I think she does it deliberately. – Francs2000 01:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Well I have now but am about to go to bed and you dump that much stuff to read on me? Well I support the principle of creating a special page that does the same thing so when it comes to the vote let me know and I'll sign where my signature needs to be. – Francs2000 01:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Special bot query[edit]

Mmm...

  • Users who acutally know something about bots: AllyUnion, RussBlau
  • User who doesn't really know anything about how a bot operates, but manages to use his by asking AllyUnion and RussBlau many questions: Commander Keane.

Try Ally or Russ or Wikipedia:Bot requests, I fear I couldn't process your question until 2010. --Commander Keane 05:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Then I'm just going to have to learn to do bots myself, eh? BD2412 T 13:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Vague idea of checking old articles with few edits.[edit]

I have this concept - need to work out details - but I'd like to be able to look at articles of greater than x age with fewer than y total edits, the idea being that this will smoke out junk that was dropped in and forgotten. Say, for the sake of argument, that x is a year and y is 3 total edits - can this be done? Can it be done in a plug-in-the-variable sense, to get an idea of the scope using different variables? BD2412 T 04:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...interesting idea. We currently have Special:Ancientpages, but that's only a list of the articles that have gone the longest without editing. Wikipedia:Pages edited by one author only has also been requested in the past, but not yet created. Certainly something along these lines should be straightforward enough to implement. I'm thinking of the following procedure:

  • Download a *full* dump from http://download.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/. This would require between 3 and 20 GB of free disk space.
  • Uncompress the dump, and analyze it article-by-article, on the fly. This requires parsing XML to extract just four things:
    • The title of the article
    • The date (perhaps convert to number of days before the present) of the first or last edit (or both?)
    • The number of edits
    • The number of editors
  • Dump these fields into a text file, which should take up less than 100 MB.

Then you would then be able to try combinations of various variables to see how many articles would be included by various criteria. Though I think you might do well just to come up with a ranked list. I would recommend sorting by number of editors first, then by number of edits, then by creation date. You could then post a list of the worst 500 to the wiki.

But what's going to happen to these articles after they are found? Will there need to be a mechanism to suppress listing certain articles?

Stuff that's so bad it needs to be deleted is pretty much taken care of - it won't show up on the next report, and in the meantime, everyone will be able to see that it is a redlink. I expect that people will start to triage the articles, and add {{wikify}} and {{cleanup}} and whatnot. If your listing is going to be triage-only, you can have people delete the listing once they've applied a cleanup tag, since then they will be brought to the attention of other editors through the normal cleanup process. Adding such a tag will actually increase the number of editors and number of edits associated with an article, so you might not have to worry about preventing these articles from showing up at the top of your list the next time around. If you want to make it more than a triage-only listing, editors can be instructed to remove listings only after substantial improvements have been made, though after a few editors touch them, articles will no longer appear at the top of your list. If you are just doing triage, though, you might want to exclude articles that are already flagged for some kind of cleanup, if they clog up the list. (I'm guessing that won't happen, but you never know.) – Beland 06:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

  • My main concern is in removing "bad stuff" from Wikipedia. I like the idea of assigning a score based on variables, and the only thing I can think to add (in retrospect) is a factor that would take the length of the article into account (also captured by Wikipedia:Shortpages). Since certain factors are clearly red flags for articles, I'd like to find a way to mix in those factors to indicate which flags are the reddest, and worry about what to do with the information (i.e. setting up a triage system) once the info is on the table. BD2412 T 15:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


(Continued on Wikipedia talk:Neglected articles.) – Beland 06:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Question[edit]

What does this coding-found at the bottom of the article Abraham Lincoln- mean? Thanks,





Prodego talk 13:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Edit: I see that they link to other language Wikipedias, but the links don't appear on the Abraham Lincoln article Why is this? Thanks.--Prodego talk

See edit ;-) Any idea why they don't appear? (I tried using preview to move them(the language links) around the article, but regardless of where the links were (in the article) they didn't appear in the preview. Did you change your sig? Nice T Prodego talk

Thanks for your help --Prodego talk 14:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Grass[edit]

Your changes regarding Grass and Grass (disambiguation) are contrary to the purposes of a disambiguation page. To say "grass" has some overwhelming meaning is invalid, since you cannot predict what the majority of users coming from a search for "grass" will be seeking by using a term obviously in need of disambiguation. Although I see that you would fix this by first directing every one to Poaceae and then the others on to the disambiguatin page, this sort of complicated, roundabout way of doing things was the purpose of having the more direct approach of using a disambiguation page (a wikipedia standard method), with the only clear advantage being your sense that "most" users would not have to make a series of steps to get where they wanted to in the first place. I think generally such redirect lines at the start of an article are to be avoided if possibble (not always possible) as is your second guessing user proportions. Personally, I think more users will go on to the Grass disambiguation page than the Poaceae page, so I would even question your basis for making the changes in the first place. - Marshman 22:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

You are waisting a lot of effort. Someone is going to have to fix the damage you are doing to Grass (disambiguation). Since you refuse to discusss, I'll let you proceed (its your time), but you are essentially reversing efforts that were done a year or more ago to settle essentially the argument you are now assuming without discussion - Marshman 02:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Backlog?[edit]

Yes, that was the idea. If something is perpetually backlogged because of influx, why not tag it? I'm trying to bring attention to the cat as much as possible, e.g. on RFA, as well. Radiant_>|< 22:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Kirby (disambiguation)[edit]

Hey Dabrams, could you check out the move request on the above page? It seems like an obvious move (I actually did it unilaterally, but got shouted down, so I brought it to requested moves) but almost no one's voting on it. Another vote or two should establish a conensus, I guess. Thanks. -R. fiend 17:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Blue Coat School, Oldham[edit]

Hi, just wanted to ask if you were aware that the disambiguation links you fixed in Blue Coat School, Oldham were actually in the BJAODN version of the article. I guess changing the links doesn't really matter, but the page kind of isn't supposed to be edited—did you mean to? – SCZenz 05:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes, I'm aware that the version to which I made disambiguation repairs was the BJAODN version - however, those disambig repairs do not change the outward appearance of the article which is the basis for it being in BJAODN at all. Instead, what they do is to make it easier for editors working on the Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links and Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages maintenance projects to disambiguate all the regular, non-joke articles by making the "what links here" screens for those disambig pages less crowded - articles really in need of fixing are thereby made easier to spot. Although I agree that the joke page ought not be edited for content, the primary mission of Wikipedia (providing an encyclopedia) should outweigh the interest in maintaining a BJOADN page with links to disambiguation pages (which appear identical to the corrected links anyway). Cheers! BD2412 T 12:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I thought something like that might be the case—no problem then. The article had a real spate of content edits before, so I like to keep an eye on it. – SCZenz 17:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Pine nut / dabbing Native American[edit]

Hi Tedernst - saw you dabbed this to [[Native Americans in the United States|Native Americans]]. It applies as much or more to Native Americans in what is now Mexico than the US, but was relevant on both sides of the modern border. What's the best to use in that scenario? - MPF 20:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll change it to that - MPF 21:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Conflict[edit]

I have modified one of the standard templates to create Template:Conflict of laws but when I try to invoke it with the {{}} it modifies the entire page rather than simply inserting itself as an infobox. Obviouslly I am making a simple mistake but cannot immediately identify it. If you approve the template, could you show me how to invoke it. Many thanks in anticipation and sorry to disturb you. David91 07:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I aim to finish off all the outstanding Conflict elements and revise the others for consistency during the next few days. David91 06:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Template:FAOL text[edit]

This template I've created serves as a boilerplate text for the project page WP:FAOL. CG 18:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

new dab template project[edit]

About Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/from templates. I don't think we need to move dabs to a bottom section. It will be trival at the end to get a bot to touch the dabs - and the bot can just use the orginal list. So I'm going to just remove (delete) the entries I've completed. If you diagree I can always go back and put the ones I've done in the completed list.--Commander Keane 21:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Houston Infobox[edit]

My pleasure. I'm sure it will be something to tell the grandkids... "You were an admin before BD2412, but I thought he was always and admin"? I have no idea why Template:Houston Infobox was protected. I lifted the protection and have done the link repair. Incidentally, Bo (the dump master extraordinaire) has informed me that there are a total of 412194 main space article links needing repair (as of Nov. 13).--Commander Keane 09:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why you put the smiley after claiming that you'd do "the extra 32,806", you were being deadly serious. I'd like to see a mediawiki feature where uopn saving it warned you if a page has any wikilinks to dab pages - it would really bring the community's attention to the project. Alas, it would be a server hog I imagine, but you can always hope. Have you ever considered using the disambiguation bot (meta:Solve_disambiguation.py)? I have managed to record speeds of over 600 an hour with it.--Commander Keane 14:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Dab'ing timelines[edit]

Since I didn't get around to leaving a note on the project page (mea culpa), you dab'ed Pantheon from Template:Roman Empire again. Unfortunately, the dab broke the formatting of the rest of the page, so I have reverted to the un-dab'ed version. (And asked the author of the EasyTimeline thingy for help). So when you fix a timeline, please check to make sure it doesn't break the formatting. I hope we'll figure out soon why this happens and what can be done to avoid it. Thanks and happy disambiguating, Kusma (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

It usually seems to work (I haven't found a problem with piped links on any other timeline than Template:Roman Empire), so I think you can still try to disambiguate on timelines, just preview and check it doesn't break anything. Kusma (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
And I have yet another nitpicking comment: That timeline had Pantheon twice, and you deleted it from the list after dab'ing only one of them. Please check "Whatlinkshere" before you delete a template's entry from Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/from templates (I have added a note at the top of that page). Kusma (talk) 22:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

My apologies (again)[edit]

My apologies for disturbing you again but I would value your opinion on the issues raised on Talk:Get (conflict). David91 09:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for resolving the misunderstanding which originated when it was suggested that the page be retitled. Frankly, I have no understanding of why they are pressing for a merger or to avoid using Conflict, but we seemed to lack any common ground for an exchange of views so your input has saved me from my own stupidity (yet again). David91 14:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Unreferenced[edit]

Sounds fine to me. We need more topic categories for unreferenced tags. – BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-6 15:27

Timeline of British composers[edit]

OK, I think that's fixed now. I suspect you weren't breaking the template, it's just that the rendering - I found when I created it - is rather temperamental and it's a bit of a coin-toss as to whether it appears when you preview/save. Cheers for the feedback. --bodnotbod 22:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)