User talk:Narky Blert

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archives[edit]

2019[edit]

Bachsaal Schloss Koethen.jpg


Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019 -

begin it with music and memories

Thank you for your help last year, and your good wishes! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:49, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Prosit Neujahr! Narky Blert (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Danke - Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. I wanted that for 1 January, but then wasn't sad about having our music pictured instead. Not too late for resolutions, New Year or not. DYK that he probably kept me on Wikipedia, back in 2012? By the line (which brought him to my attention, and earned the first precious in br'erly style) that I added to my editnotice, in fond memory? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

St Peter's Westcheap[edit]

Dear Narky Blert, Thankyou for your admonition of a dab needed for Richard Newcourt, which I have attended to. Sometimes I am lazy and construct articles directly in pagespace rather than Sandbox, specially when there's an existing stub around which to build, rather than just "plumping in" a whole new article in one fell plump. (They always need lots of revising anyway.) I have completely reworked that section anyway this morning. I just wanted to say that I am always very grateful for your vigilant adjustments and corrections to my efforts, which are really extremely helpful when one is in the throes of raking the internet for that elusive reference or titbit, and trying to marshal it all together, and to thank you very much for this and to wish you a very Happy New Year. Season's Greetings, Eebahgum (talk) 14:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Eebahgum:. You're very welcome. Thank you for your speedy resolution of the problem. HNY to you too! Narky Blert (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Re:Stewart (name)[edit]

Hi Narky Blert, the page Stuart (name) is not a redirect to Stuart (disambiguation). I'm happy to leave an edit summary if justification is sought, and it has been, so no need to take further action at this time. Gherkinmad (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Gherkinmad: You are correct. I was repairing a link to Steuart, which is a DAB page. Narky Blert (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
That's good but with Steuart it's slight code wastage to do it by the book. I do still think a bit like that, even now when there's less reason for it! Gherkinmad (talk) 02:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Egfrid[edit]

Hi Narky Blert, The reason I linked Egfrid (1810 ship) to the dab page for Egfrid was that I have no info on which of the two Egfrids she is named. Do you have additional info suggesting that it was the king, and not the cleric? If not, should we perhaps revert to the link to the dab page? Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin:. I was WP:BOLD. It's 1810: are you going to name an armed merchantman after a little-known bishop (stub article, one citation from 1996) or the first king of Northumbria (mentioned in at least two places by the Venerable Bede, who lived at Monkwearmouth–Jarrow Abbey, which was founded by the king)? I suspect that someone remembered the name of the king from school. Also, Lindisfarne is a fair distance from Tyneside, where the ship was built; while Jarrow is on the Tyne. Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. I can live with the change. Given the weird names one sees on ships, there remains the possibility that someone was more taken with the cleric for reasons we cannot know. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
@Acad Ronin: Temple of Jarrow, who built Egfrid, also built the Oswin (1810) - another northern king mentioned by Bede. A sister ship, perhaps? No other ship's name in that list is much help.
(That citation usefully places the shipyard at South Shields rather than just 'Shields'.) Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Nice catch. That makes me feel even better about the King Egfrid. And it turns out that WP has a stubb on Temple shipbuilders. I will link both ways. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
@Acad Ronin: I hadn't thought to look in WP for the shipbuilder - not that it would have helped much, they weren't on the DAB page until just now. Good catch by you.
With at least 3 articles, there may be mileage in creating Category:Ships built by Temple shipbuilders.
Their merchantmen don't seem to have been exactly leakproof, do they? Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Ah, win some, lose some. I am adding the vessels for which I know we have WP articles (six so far), to the shipbuilders article. If you know how to create a category, please do so and let me know. I will then add the category to the articles. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
@Acad Ronin: Done for Egfrid. I simply added the cat to that article and saved. The link showed as red; clicking on it opened the cat for editing. So, I added the {{catmain}} link, and a couple of higher-level cats (chosen by looking at Category:Ships built by Harland and Wolff) - with sortkeys, once I'd remembered to add them. Easy when you know how! Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Ta. Now I will add that to the articles. I have identified 12 already, and some still to go. Acad Ronin (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
@Acad Ronin: Whoops, nearly forgot - I've just added Temple shipbuilders to their own category.
A good afternoon's work, there. It's always satisfying to link or group articles together. I find categories can be useful search tools. Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, I have been able to link 21 WP ship articles to the Temple shipbuilders. Agree that it is good to be able to link articles, especially when this leads to building them out. (Also the process of editing revealed a number of typos that I had introduced and could fix.) One of the things I like about WP is the ongoing incremental improvement that occurs. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC discussion on List of 2017 articles that is really about proper use of Wikipedia:Article size. Requesting your time because I think a guideline is being misused[edit]

Please, I need your input. There is a conversation about splitting an article because of its size, but I don’t care which way you would vote on if it should be split or not. My issue is that the other editor and a companion-in-arms are misusing, mistranslating Wikipedia:Article size. These two are reducing the size of the largest articles in Wikipedia, which sounds like a noble goal, but when I asked what limit there should be on an article size, the response was 100 kB characters. The Wiki-guideline does state that readable prose should be less than 100 kB, but readable prose is the article minus citations, lists, tables, footnotes, and images, so I find the interpretation dangerous. The other editor said to get articles down in size, a yearly list could be cut down in half, in quarters, or even monthly. I cannot picture the easy usage of lists that is divided by month for multiple years. The guideline mostly states lists and tables are excluded from the guideline, so my objection to the split is that there is no justification except a misused guideline.

Basically, I think these two editors are going beyond being useful in improving Wikipedia and are moving into damaging Wikipedia, so I would like you to come to Talk:List of 2017 albums#Request for comment, read the discussions in the two section above it, especially Talk:List of 2017 albums#Redux, and provide feedback. I do not care if you say split or oppose, but to me the discussion is not about the split but the misuse of the Article Size guideline, and I want your and others I respect feedback on the conversation and the proper use of the guideline. Mburrell (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors![edit]

Wiki Project Med Foundation logo.svg The 2018 Cure Award
In 2018 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Doc James: It's encouraging to see such high levels of activity in non-English WPs.
I only find and try (with the skilled assistance of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine) to fix small errors, particularly links to DAB pages. Yes, I do consider that an important task. Which reminds me - it's about time I had another look at my medicine bookmarks folder... Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Leghari[edit]

...is now unprotected. Best, Airplaneman 03:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Airplaneman: ...and is now a DAB page. Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 06:57, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

NOTOC[edit]

Please do not add NOTOC to disambiguation pages. They should instead use {{tocright}}, as done in this edit (I'm currently going through a list of 1700 disambiguation pages which has NOTOC on them and fixing them). (tJosve05a (c) 22:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Fixing dab links in s-rail templates[edit]

A note - when you see a dab link inside an s-rail template, it's far better to fix it in the associated stations template. That way, the link is fixed everywhere, and it's easier to maintain in case of future page moves. For example, instead of edits like this, it's better to do this. If you ever have questions on what template to change, feel free to ping me. Thanks for all your hard work fixing links, and cheers! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: I try to look at, and if possible fix, 150-200 bad links to DAB pages every day. Most take only a minute or two, but a few have taken up to an hour (including multilingual searching) to find the correct answer. It took considerable argument by two or three experienced DABfixers (one of whom is in the million-edit club) to even get |link1= and |link2= added to {{s-line}}. I'm sorry, but I just don't have the time to learn the innards of complex templates as well. Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 09:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Then it's probably best to either leave them be (one of us rail editors will stumble upon it soon enough) or post on the talk page. Using the link1 or link2 parameters just creates additional work for us - they should only be used in situations where the associated stations template doesn't exist. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@Pi.1415926535: |link1= and |link2= help readers. Nothing else matters. Narky Blert (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Any chance you could take a look at this request for a dab page?[edit]

Talk:Mental process. Not my request by any means. The same editor created the weird article I've taken to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Intellectual function article. Thanks. I wish the psychology and cognition wikiprojects were active. Doug Weller talk 20:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I suppose that 'mental function' is a possible search term, but it doesn't strike me as a very likely one. I associate the term more with its negation, i.e. loss of mental function or dementia. I can't easily think of a satisfactory target, nor of how to turn the title into either a DAB page or a WP:BCA. I suggest that you open a discussion at WP:RFD (mentioning the fact that the page has history). Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Please help[edit]

Hi,

right now the term "turóc" redirects to "Turok_(disambiguation)#Places", but I'd like to change it a to directly redirect to Turóc County, because it's fitting rightly there...could you do it? (I managed with "turoc" from the Turiec article, but regarding this I'm having problems)...Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: How does this look?
Turóc -> Turóc County
Hatnote in Turóc County -> Turok (disambiguation)
Turoc -> Turok (disambiguation)
It's a safe bet that anyone who types ó knows what they're looking for. Everyone else is best served by the DAB page. Come back to me if you see any problems with this scheme. Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks will be ok like this, Sincerely.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC))

Gautrain[edit]

It's not disambiguation, but you may be interested in reading the discussion at Template talk:Gautrain route diagram#Terminus. Certes (talk) 11:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Certes: There are occasional signs of WP:OWN among the trainspotters. See also #Fixing dab links in s-rail templates. I was wryly amused soon after that discussion to find an article about a Massachusetts station, edited most recently by that very editor, which linked to a DAB page in one direction and to a station in Dorset in the other. Narky Blert (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Does Book: accept sci-fi novels?
Alice left the train at Central Station (disambiguation). She walked through the second door from the left, marked Central railway station, Sydney, marvelling at how this new form of transport had changed her life...
Certes (talk) 12:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Path loss[edit]

Merge-arrows.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing—Path loss—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Pierre cb (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

James Craig[edit]

I could have sworn I checked that link! Thanks for spotting it. DuncanHill (talk) 14:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: YVW - that's what we WikiGnomes do. (A couple of times, I've had the embarrassment of seeing links to DAB pages in my own articles turn up in the bot report.) Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

March law[edit]

If I change this article to a {{set index}}, then can I undo this edit? –Srnec (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Srnec: It's only DAB pages which require that sort of indirect addressing; so, yes, of course.
March law might be better as a WP:BCA than a WP:SIA. As I understand it, English (Anglo-Norman) policy over several centuries was pretty much the same on all three borders: allow the marcher lords special privileges to raise private armies and to build castles. Barons who did that away from the border were a danger to the crown, and needed to be suppressed. A strong king could do that, because other barons wouldn't want to see their rivals get over-mighty, and would back him. On the other hand, neither king nor barons wanted the nuisance and expense of raising a standing army to guard the borders; nor was there then any mechanism for doing so. It was much simpler for everyone just to let families like Percy and Douglas get on with their traditional amusements of cattle-stealing and blood feuds, so long as they didn't involve anyone else. They also provided a first-line buffer against full-scale invasion.
I suspect the policy worked because there was no consistently strong centralised government on the other side of any of those borders. The Irish and Welsh were often fighting among themselves; the Scots seemed to be forever having succession crises. Invasions across the Anglo-Scottish border in both directions never led to a conclusive result; not least because the Borders are a natural border, where it's difficult to feed men and horses (except in the extreme east).
I could go on to speculate why march law never seemed to take hold in France, and to draw parallels with e.g. the Holy Roman Empire, in which the Electors were in effect the Big Men who guarded the western and eastern borders; but that's enough WP:OR for now. Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 04:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I will look into making it a BCA, if the sources can support it. Srnec (talk) 23:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Species namers[edit]

Would you be kind enough to take a look at Ferrissia californica? I can't make Tryon with a date of 1863 work.— Rod talk 13:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Rodw:  Done I also managed to find a given name for Rowell and an initial for Miroli. Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 13:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks - there is also some taxonomist beyond me at Peganum harmala#Taxonomy. Is William Turner William Turner Thiselton-Dyer or William Turner (naturalist)?— Rod talk 14:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
@Rodw:  Done William Turner (naturalist), in A New Herball (1551). Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 14:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Ta - How about a 2019 claim of Ross Smith on Mamushi?— Rod talk 17:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
@Rodw: I couldn't find a thing about him, even searching more broadly for 'Ross Smith herpetology' – unlinked. Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Taxa linked to surnames[edit]

I was looking for links from taxa to surnames. I wrote a Quarry query but it takes too long and gives up, and can't sensibly be split, but I've found a semi-automated way to search with Petscan. Here are the results for surnames A-B, with a few C-Z who happen to be linked from the same pages. Unfortunately, it's not easy to report automatically which surname appears in which article.

(Edited out clumsy list, now replaced by User:Certes/Taxa linked to surnames)

Many surnames are of people who don't have articles; for example the snail Lamellitrochus pourtalesi refers to "C. G. Aguayo", who may or may not be entomologist Carlos Guillermo Aguayo. There are some redirects in there. A few like Borhidi redirect to biologists who may be the correct target. Others like Allaster redirect to tennis players who probably aren't. Fixing these looks like a painstaking task for an expert, and certainly not something I'm attempting to dump on you! Is this list helpful and worth continuing for C-Z? If so, is there be a better forum to raise it in? Certes (talk) 14:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Certes: A lot of work for sure, but it's something I'd be only too happy to look into. I would plan to work from the list of taxa alone. No, I don't think there is a better place to ask.
I'd provisionally bet my mortgage that you've ID'ed Aguayo, despite the different field. The dates are OK. From Wikispecies: Worked at Poey Museum, Universidad de la Habana, Cuba. From L. pourtalesi: Published in es:Memorias de la Sociedad Cubana de Historia Natural "Felipe Poey" (which has only been digitised up to 1923). He seems to have been a generalist - see this review by him of an ornithological work. Narky Blert (talk) 14:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll carry on and get the rest of the list. I would have thought that working from a list of surnames would be easier. It's shorter, as the same guy tends to get mislinked in multiple places, and it would be easy to see "what links here" and fix all the snails while Aguayo's link is in your paste buffer. However, the list of taxa pops out as a by-product, so that's easy to produce if it helps. Certes (talk) 14:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I've created User:Certes/Taxa linked to surnames. It contains false positives, but hopefully not too many. Certes (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Certes: Excellent, I'll start to work my way through that. Narky Blert (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting these out. Acalymma albidovittata's taxobox links to Luperini which redirects to a cyclist. species:Luperini redirects to Galerucini, so could Luperini be an alternative name for the Galerucini tribe of beetles? If so then we could make Luperini a dab. This bicycling beetle crops up in several other insect articles and taxonomy templates, so it's probably worth getting right. Certes (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The surname and edit links seemed useful but I may have made the page too big to edit comfortably. If so then please feel free to split it by initial or otherwise and put the chunks somewhere more manageable. Certes (talk) 20:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Certes: Cycling beetles? I'm showing my age here!
This exercise of ours will doubtless need more than one cycle. I've just added a C19 naturalist to both a category and a list (not for the first time when tackling this sort of problem). It doesn't matter if the bot-generated lists look cumbersome, that can't be helped when there's this amount of badness. Remember when DAB pages with links had the best part of 40,000 entries? The solution is chipping away and chipping away, and re-running the bot from time to time.
I've had useful comeback from some of the biological WikiProjects before. If I get stuck, I'll rope them in again.
Time Team time for me, I think. I'll leave both this exercise and Carlo Antonio Fornasini (2 genera and 10 species named in his honour – I never thought that I might need my O-Level Latin again, to read C19 scientific papers) until tomorrow. Narky Blert (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I just realised that many of the bad links are from 24 taxonomy templates to Luperini. I can do a semi-automated fix on them which may fix multiple articles. Luperini (tribe) is an existing redlink: is that the best text to use? I'm not sure how it relates to Galerucini, which has different genera.

List: Acalymma, Amphelasma, Androlyperus, Cerotoma, Cyclotrypema, Diabrotica, Diabroticina, Eusattodera, Keitheatus, Luperina (beetle), Luperini, Luperosoma, Lygistus, Metrioidea, Paranapiacaba, Paratriarius, Phyllecthris, Phyllobrotica, Pseudoluperus, Pteleon, Scelida, Scelolyperus, Synetocephalus, Triarius. – Certes (talk) 00:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Certes: Gud catch! (1) Galerucinae: "The division into tribes is more a matter of tradition than based on modern research. Some genera, for example Yingaresca, are better considered incertae sedis due to a general lack of knowledge. And while a good case can be made for some tribes – namely the Alticini and Galerucini – being all but monophyletic even in their traditional delimitation, others, such as Luperini, appear to be just paraphyletic assemblages of primitive and more basal genera." (Translation: we're guessing here.) (2) species:Galerucinae distinguishes between Galerucini and Luperini. (3) If Luperini has been lumped with Galerucini (see species:Galerucini), that's very recent and could be controversial. They were being distinguished as different tribes as recently as 2009. (4) This looks like one of those messy areas, where WP should distinguish between the tribes Galerucini and Luperini until and unless there is taxonomic consensus.
I agree with you. Use the existing redlink Luperini (tribe); turn the redirect Luperini (which has a pile of links-in (which may, perhaps, never have been clicked on) from beetle-related articles) into a DAB page (with Galerucinae as the bluelink on the redlinked line); and to hell with those WP:TWODABS cops whose aim is to make navigation more difficult for readers. There's also Romano Luperini [it]; the sourcing in that article is very bad (not to mention 404), but publications 1968-2018 suggest at least an argument for WP:N. There should probably also be a two-way see-also/distinguish link between DAB page Luperini and Luperina. Narky Blert (talk) 02:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Done. We somehow failed to spot Luperini (beetle), which makes things easier! TWODABS is only a problem when there's a primary topic. I've left Romano out as I get berated when I add interlanguage links to dabs, but I did find a footballer. Luperina (a moth genus) might also be confused with Luperina (beetle), a subtribe of Luperini with incoming links but no article. Nothing that links to the moth mentions beetles, so I've boldly left it alone. Certes (talk) 11:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@Certes: That'll teach me to post without running intitle, I just looked at Italian WP.
WP:TWODABs is only a problem when it gets misused in move discussions and such. I like two-entry DAB pages. The only thing I really dislike is one-entry DAB pages (and I've seen a few of those). Narky Blert (talk) 12:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@Certes: I suspect that your tool is picking up {{R from surname}} pages. See e.g. Pasteur and Beijerinck in Acetobacter aceti, and Herrich-Schäffer and Möschler in Achyra rantalis. Narky Blert (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
You're right: I'm working through the surnames which are redirects now. Some such as Allaster needed attention (especially as the context demands a taxon rather than a person) but most are as you describe. I'm currently up to Bolívar, which turns out to be Bolívar Department, Colombia rather than Simón plant-hunting in his spare time. If necessary, we can redo the taxon list with the redirects weeded out. Certes (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@Certes: It does no harm to keep R from surname in the search, and can do good. I routinely check them to see if they're correct, and have turned several into surname pages, or added a hatnote. See e.g. Martinus Beijerinck. Narky Blert (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I've reduced the taxon list for now to those which link to a surname article rather than a surname redirect. This will also have got rid of Luperini and friends. I can go separately through those surnames which are redirects, fixing those which are not biologists. I think these will need a different type of fix and we shouldn't be tripping over each other much. Then we can consider the likes of Beijerinck where the current links work, so bypassing the redirect is not a priority and debatably disruptive. Certes (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC) A couple that fell through my net:

Please can you help with those? Thanks, Certes (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Certes: (1) Becker, your pdf is right. I'd found him as Ralph Thomas Becker, see Acrimeroceras. (He sometimes spells his first name Ralf.) (2) It's Jacobus all right - link. I'd only found him as J. J. Boomsma, so I've made a redirect.

I've fixed most of the links to redirects which are marked as surnames but a few still need an expert eye. For example, the first one links to Brants which redirects to an artist from the wrong era. Can you help please?

Some lazy editors have explicitly linked to pages called Yoshimatsu (name), List of people with surname Taylor, etc. rather than bothering to find the relevant person. Again, I've fixed most of those but a few need help. In most cases I've fixed some but not all of the links.

I see that other lazy editors have explicitly linked to pages called Foo (disambiguation) rather than bothering to find the relevant person. My queries didn't look for those and there may be more work to do, possibly involving a trout.

The current version of User:Certes/Taxa linked to surnames excludes taxa linked only to redirects and "Foo (surname)" pages. Therefore I've not crossed anything off the list; any that happen to be on there may still need attention for other problems that I overlooked. For similar reasons, I've not attempted to cross off taxa that correctly linked to a non-biologist, such as Narcissus (plant)Wordsworth. Certes (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Certes: Some 20-open-tab jobs in there; but I got at least an initial for the lot, except for the Wang twins and Wang/Zhu in your last two posts; and where there's an initial, there's room for a parenthetical qualifier if necessary.
Zhang in Porphyra was tricky, because there were two of them.
Nicrophorus investigator contained not only Swan but also Kieseritzky and Papp. Swan & Papp were easy once I'd WP:BOLDly corrected the century of their paper.
I'm all in favour of unlinking authorities from the last 30 years or so, if nothing can easily be found. There's a whole industry in producing grad students who aren't notable yet and may never be.
Lazy editors who try to hide their mistakes annoy the bejasus out of me. One thing I see a lot of, is editors who've clearly reacted to a User:DPL bot nastygram by piping the same bad link. Sigh. Narky Blert (talk) 20:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Well done and thank you! I know this can be a lot of work (which someone else should have done). I hope that we may now have some of the most awkward cases out of the way. I found one more in Pholidae. It helpfully linked to Schultz#Real_persons, which quickly allowed me to rule out any fictional ichthyologists. Certes (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@Certes: It needs doing, and I enjoy the challenge. It makes a pleasant change from unlinking 'of', and from trying to work out who sang a banal song in a forgettable Indian movie referenced only to IMDb. (At my rough estimate, 90% of articles associated with Indian film could fail at WP:AFD. As an inclusionist, I let them be. I only nominate an article if I feel my will to live draining away while reading it.) If you recall Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links#Where next? part 1 of 2 – intentional links to DAB pages, surnames was my projected part 2 of 2 (and WP:SIAs my projected part 3 of 2), with the similar idea of a wrapper template to show that a link to a surname page had been inspected and certified kosher. At a rough count, your tool found only about 4,000 dodgy links; and that number is easily attackable. (Compare the 149,000 in Named disambiguation pages with links.)
I flatter myself that in some cases, few editors are capable of solving a problem. Karsten in Nerita signata was a case in point. All WP articles about Dietrich Ludwig Gustav Karsten, and his entry in Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, describe him purely as a mineralogist. However, I eventually found a 1789 paper (in Latin, of course) by one D. L. G. Karsten who clearly knew a bit about Linnean taxonomy, and had no hesitation in making the connection. C18 men of science were often knowledgable in more than one field. In C19 too they weren't always narrow specialists; for example, Darwin's interests extended across the whole natural kingdom (he wrote scholarly papers on orchids, barnacles, earthworms and pigeons, among other things) and into geology.
I too have come across U.S. towns which have boldly explored the Amazonian jungle and described a new genus.
My illusions are forever being shattered. "Superman is a fictional superhero" (emphasis added). Narky Blert (talk) 06:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
For a valid but interesting example of links to surnames, see Soesiladeepakius. Certes (talk) 11:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Certes: I've come across Calodema, or another Australian journal very like it, and possibly Makhan, before. The critiques among the citations are worth a read. Narky Blert (talk) 11:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm sure there are many other fruitful hunting grounds, such as football matches with goals by Lingard, Lukaku and Sánchez, but they may need a different subject expert. I just fixed a few links from those three surnames, though none were sports related. Ideally, someone should do the same for the other 63,000 surnames. Certes (talk) 11:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Certes: Also writers, artists and philosophers. I wonder too how many major cities and other PTOPICs have had remarkable and unexpected scientific, sporting or creative careers? Narky Blert (talk) 12:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Certes: Always a satisfying solution to this type of problem, he said smugly: Agapanthia talassica. (If you clink on the Interwiki link, you may get spurious red and blue notifications in English WP. If you do, just click on them, and they'll go away.) Narky Blert (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
In Baltoceras, does venter mean "front" or "underside" in the sense of ventral? If so then I can do an automated edit and cross a dozen similar pages off our list. Certes (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@Certes: Yes. I've already fixed a couple of those, and see no reason why any others should be different.
I've also discovered that Baker, Hedge, Spruce and van Dyck are notable taxonomists. Narky Blert (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I should already have fixed cases like van Dyck where the surname redirects to a non-biologist. Hedge and Spruce are hard to find due to being legitimate botanical terms. That just leaves Baker, for whom I find:
It also suggests a further search for bad links. I wonder what we find if we list botanist abbreviations which lack punctuation and are the titles of pages which exist and are not surnames or botanists or redirects to those, manually weed out terms widely used in plant articles such as Hedge and Spruce, and see which taxa link there. Certes (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@Certes: I found evidence for both Bakers, agree with you, and have made the changes. I missed those two in my eyeball search.
To my mild annoyance, Richard Spruce wasn't an example of nominative determinism. Narky Blert (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Scrap that last idea. I just checked a substantial sample, and all were false positives. It looks as if the botanists have done a good job there. Thanks for your continuing efforts, and I can also find plenty of other pages to mend. Certes (talk) 19:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@Certes: Your list gives plenty to be getting along with for now. I put a fair-sized dent in it today only because the bit of DPL bot I rely on is poorly-sick.
I found that Jordan has described a species; however, I didn't feel inclined to wade through several thousand links-in looking for a taxonomist who would be redlinked. Exline has published several scientific papers (I'm impressed! – but I suspect that Don L. Frizzell married Harriet rather the whole town). I think that the best way to identify such nonsenses in the first place is by eyeball.
I did not take a break to relax and to admire the view (as one is always tempted to do, on achieving even a minor summit) at the end of 'B' before advancing onto 'C'. McMurtrie in Cabassous took me 25 minutes. I expect there will be yet more teasing problems like that one hidden away in the less fashionable parts of the alphabet. Narky Blert (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes; plenty to do. I also found Jordan's friend Amman. I'm catching up on disambiguation from old bot reports and trying to rescue some portals. Certes (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@Certes: It might be worth looking at Baker's partner in crime, Miller, in case I've missed anything. (I did come across a botanist who'd described some marine fossils 30 years after his death, both here and in Wikispecies. It turned out to be John Samuel Miller, badly indexed and categorised in WP and missing from WS.) Narky Blert (talk) 12:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Just Jason mirabilis, which should be Michael Charles Miller. I don't think he has an article but perhaps you can find him on Klingon Wikipedia or somewhere... Certes (talk) 12:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks again for doing the heavy lifting here. I've been looking at false positives. Carissa carandas is caused by Vaidya within {{Ayurveda}}, which is marked as a surname but actually describes a type of physician. If that template is in the footer and you can't see any other problems then there's nothing to fix. Certes (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@Certes: J. mirabilis fixed.
You may be intrigued to learn that Chiron has developed an interest in orchids.
This project is going well. I haven't yet failed to resolve a bad link one way or another (famous last words); except for your Three Wangs and a Zhu, above. I plan to work through the rest of your taxon list as my primary task, whether or not DLP bot receives CPR, is speedily transported to A&E, and is visited on ward by relatives, colleagues, and casual acquaintances bringing presents of grapes.
Looking at numerous articles on species and genera has confirmed my pre-existing notion that there are well-written stub articles and then there are stub articles.
I prefer to attack the taxon list rather the the surname list, because I can then look at all the links on a page without feeling that I might be being distracted from something more immediate. Thus, I've bookmarked Sowerby family, with its completely and utterly useless, but easily resolvable, links-in for attention as&when. Narky Blert (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I've refined the surname check to pick up cases like Guzmán. Unfortunately it will now also give a few false positives where a surname redirects to a biologist but these will be the same few famous regulars such as Pasteur and should be easy to ignore. I'll have a quick check through A-C to see if we missed any Guzmán type links there. Certes (talk) 11:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
@Certes:. False positives from redirects are no bother at all. I found one earlier today which I turned into a 5-entry DAB page. One article I flagged as 'harmless false positive' contained a {{distinguish}} hatnote to a surname page.
For botanical problems, IPNI is a superb resource.
You were right on Aguayo. A Google search threw up "Carlos Guillermo Aguayo y Castro, Cuban malacologist & entomologist (Habana 19 December 1899 - 12 February 1982)".
Still no more failures to report - though I was struggling a couple of times, and had to use Low Cunning on Echeveria peacockii. (I've used that sort of footnote before to solve DAB problems; in cases such as where the Conqueror paid off one of his barons with the manor of Piddling, which presumably encompassed the three modern adjoining villages Little Piddling, Much Piddling and Piddling About.) Narky Blert (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
@Certes: Daily update. Over halfway through the taxa list, and all still going well. :-) Narky Blert (talk) 20:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, well done and thanks again for doing all the hard work. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help, such as speedily fixing all further pages linking to a few commonly mislinked people. Certes (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Certes: Duracell Bunny report: still going. I've been onto page 4 of Google searches at least twice, but haven't been defeated yet. (That wouldn't be the case with e.g. footballers or Indian actors.)
I don't think there's any reason for further automated fixes. I have a handful of Usual Suspects; but they're easy, and there's always the risk of being wrong in an isolated case.
Your tool seems to have missed Jackes in Myrsine howittiana, for some reason. Narky Blert (talk) 20:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
It didn't miss Jackes as such but it missed Myrsine howittiana entirely. That plant uses {{Speciesbox}}, which isn't one of the templates I was looking for. It looks as if there may be another list coming, but (judging by template transclusion count) it should be much shorter. Certes (talk) 20:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I've updated the list to add Speciesbox entries, and removed the done ones to keep it of manageable size. Socognathus is particularly disappointing. Certes (talk) 12:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Certes: Indeed it was. All 5 now redlinked. Having the initials of 3 of them simplified matters, and the other 2 popped up at the top of a Google search. Narky Blert (talk) 12:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Help[edit]

Dear Narky Blert! Can you make linking from Nassar to Nassar (actor) in article Baahubali: The Beginning and Si3? Thank you! —-178.71.166.180 (talk) 15:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Narky Blert (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Dear Narky Blert! Can you make linking from Sameer to Sameer (lyricist) in article Hariharan discography and Kumar Sanu discography and filmography? Thank you! —-78.36.86.146 (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Narky Blert (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguator's Barnstar[edit]

Disambiguation Barnstar Small.png The Disambiguator's Barnstar
The Disambiguator's Barnstar is awarded to Wikipedians who are prolific disambiguators.
I forget if I gave you one of these already, but here, have (another?) one because either way you deserve it. Nessie (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Narky Blert (talk) 17:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Protocole/Help!/You Rock[edit]

I'm positive I'm not doing this correctly - leaving a message for you, so please forgive me for not fully understanding how to leave a message. You contributed/improved an article I wrote about a figure in Hollywood that I am a inspired by named Jeff Beacher. I did a ton of research about him and found very reliable sources and articles about everything I posted. I was very encouraged by the amount of support - and by the quality of editors here that were helping to improve the article - and was proud to have it on the platform. Well, I went to share it with a friend last night and saw it had been deleted. I am abosolutely dumbfounded as to why it was deleted, so I'm reaching out to a few of the people who had supported it, including you. Again, so sorry if I did this message to you the wrong way, but I would be grateful to hear back from you. Thank you again for being so cool and supportive of my article on Jeff Beacher. You rock! DarthBuffet (talk) 19:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@DarthBuffet: You just posted a message/cry for help to another editor in a very proper manner.
I'm not an admin, so don't have the ability to see the content of deleted articles. What I can see is:
10:10, 6 March 2019 Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs) deleted page Jeff Beacher (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
Those reliable sources may not have been as good as you thought! (Read WP:RS.) Or, you may have been overly promotional, rather than neutral.
There is a way of asking for a page back so that you can work on it (WP:REFUND) – but, it can't be used in a WP:G11 case like this. If you've got your draft article saved: no problem, you can work from that. If you haven't: post on the talk page of the admin who deleted it (see above), and ask for a copy. (I'm basically repeating what's on your Talk Page, at User talk:DarthBuffet#Speedy deletion nomination of Jeff Beacher.) Feel free to link to your request here and to my advice: the link is User talk:Narky Blert#Protocole/Help!/You Rock. In either case, work on the article in your sandbox. Once you're happy with it, go through the 'Submit your draft for review!' rigmarole. An experienced editor will review it (OK perhaps not tomorrow, there's always a backlog), and either accept it or suggest what you need to do to improve it.
Every experienced editor was a newbie once. Happy editing! Narky Blert (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Narky Blert: You are awesome! And thank you for the kind words and encouragement. I'm going to be able to spend more time on this tomorrow (and yes, I did save all of my work off-line); and will take a deeper read of your response and follow your lead. I did get word from the editor who deleted the article and he was really cool and is offering to help me too. Appreciate y'all! Back soon... DarthBuffet (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@DarthBuffet: There's a major guideline you might be interested in skimming through: WP:DONTBITE. Narky Blert (talk) 23:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@Narky Blert: Again, thank you for your time and support. I just purused that article. It doesn't feel like I was getting attacked per se, just that they felt the article wasn't written in a wiki-tone. I'm going to reach back to the editor who I thought had deleted it and try and work with them to get it back up. This guy Jeff Beacher is really inspiring to me and I found tons of content about him on-line that appears solid, and I avoided using any references from gossip rags about him. Really appreciate your kindnes! DarthBuffet (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
@DarthBuffet: As a general tip - use adjectives sparingly, and preferably only factually. I seem forever to be reading articles which begin "John Doe is a notable/famous/inspirational/legendary whatever". Those adjectives don't make him so, they annoy me, and I'm already getting to dislike John Doe. Let the facts speak for themselves.
As an extreme example, I've written articles about three people who IMO died heroic deaths: a mountain rescuer, and a policeman and a priest murdered by the Nazis. The fact that all three have had streets named after them says something. None of those articles uses the word 'hero' outside direct quotes. That was what I wanted readers to think, but I didn't want to tell them how to think. Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@Narky Blert: This is EXTREMELY HELPFUL! Truly, it's hard to find this kind of straight-forward plain-speak information about Wiki on Google/Youtube. I wish you would write a book about wiki with this kinda of straight talk!! So, on the 19th, the deleting editor, Anthony Appleyard, restored my article about Jeff Beacher. I just left him a nice note. I really appreciate your time, you and a few other editors here have made me feel like I matter and have encouraged me to dig deeper to get better at this. Appreciate you!DarthBuffet (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)