User talk:R'n'B/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions about User:R'n'B. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Antarctic stubs

Hi. Unfortunately the Antarctica stubs are all started now. Perhaps you coudl use AWB to fix the links?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

thanks for your hard work on te Tajikistan articles man User:Smith Jones 18:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz 240D and Mercedes-Benz 300D

Hi I'd like to ask You is it possible for You to delete these two articles (Mercedes-Benz 240D and Mercedes-Benz 300D), as they're poorly written, unreferenced (since 2007), unneeded and confusing as there is main article about Mercedes-Benz W123 which is of good standard and it includes those models. Those two models doesn't need separate articles also because they have no extraordinary features which couldn't be found in other W123 series cars. I redirected them some time ago to article about W123 (you then deleted text), but since some IP reverted this and I don't want to engage into any edit war, so I'm asking You to take action.

SHAMAN 14:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Monthly list

Hi Russ, I'm making some changes to the monthly list. I'm pretty sure it isn't used by any of your scripts, but I want to check with you before I deploy. Could you let me know if changing the monthly list page would affect any of your work? Thanks, --JaGa^talk 07:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You're correct, it isn't accessed by any of my scripts, so go right ahead! Out of curiosity, what changes are you making? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Nothing much, just gave it a bonus list-style update. It's deployed now. --JaGa^talk 21:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Peterlee, England

Hello

I recently visited "Peterlee, England" and was perplexed by the content until I realised that I was actually viewing a page about Easington(s). I think that this might be due to a change which intended to avoid a double redirect:

Line 1: Line 1: - #REDIRECT Peterlee + #REDIRECT Easington, County Durham

Current revision as of 16:50, 1 March 2006 1.REDIRECT Easington, County Durham

imho it would be more appropriate to redirect to Peterlee

Thanks for consideringIcarusgeek (talk) 08:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. You could have done this yourself. :-) R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ross. I shall claim that 10 Weeks of Crosby indoctrination led me to over-interpret your statement "If you are expressing a concern about edits made by RussBot" as a desire to know about oddities (for root cause analysis or somesuch). SorryIcarusgeek (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Acronym

At Hideyo Noguchi Africa Prize, you must have had good reason for a trivial edit here. Please amplify the reasoning which informed that edit of a parenthetical acronym.

I created this specific "mistake"; and it's illustrative of a pattern replicated across hundreds of articles. There are three options. The question becomes, which is best and why?

National Diet Library, no acronym
National Diet Library (NDL), no link
National Diet Library (NDL), link to acronym disambiguation
National Diet Library (NDL), piped acronym link to subject article

My best guess is that your edit favors the least helpful of these plausible choices.

In hundreds of instances, I have preferred the piped acronym link, especially for British postnomials. However, in this instance, the link to the disambiguation page. This option alerts the reader about other acronyms other than the Japanese national library. In other words, your edit removes a link which is arguably useful -- not best in all cases, but better in this one.

Please help me parse alternate points-of-view about this trivial matter. --Tenmei (talk) 15:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Of the four options you listed, my preference would be none of them: I prefer --

National Diet Library (NDL)

Why? First, WP:ABBR suggests putting the acronym in parentheses after the full name, so that rules out your first option. Second, WP:CONTEXT suggests that a link should take the reader to the article that is relevant to the context, and clearly that is National Diet Library, not the disambiguation page NDL, so that rules out your third option. You suggest that the link to the disambiguation "is arguably useful," but I don't see it -- none of the other things that are called "NDL" could have any relevance to the article in which the link appears. Your second option has no link at all, which is not helpful to someone who wants to know about the library. And your fourth option has the right link, but in the wrong place; why make the reader guess what the link is for? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I had to read your explanation several times before I understood. FYI: I've saved a link to this short thread so that I can refer to it if I ever need to explain the concept to someone else. --Tenmei (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The Daily Disambig Inquiry

With the creation of the Bonus List I was wondering if the Daily Disambig could be modified to include those DABS with 1 link like it already does for 50, 100, etc, so as to see how we are doing? Ulric1313 (talk) 19:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

(lurker comment) That would be cool - I find myself doing the math to see how many there are today compared to the beginning of the month - but my hope is, when the one-link list gets small enough, to expand the bonus list to include two-link dabs, three-link, etc. So it could be a hassle to track at TDD. --JaGa^talk 19:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Jason, if your script could insert somewhere (even in a comment) the total number of pages in the bonus list, I could easily copy that information into the Daily Disambig. Otherwise, my script would have to load each page and follow the links to the next, until I get to the end, to figure out how many items are on the list each day. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I put a comment near the top of the bonus list - would that do? Let me know if you need me to reformat it in any way. --JaGa^talk 08:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll try to roll this out in time for the next monthly update. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Only Warning

If your bot continues to edit war as it is doing here, I will personally take it to ANI and have it stopped...permanently. Bots are supposed to have codes so that doesn't happen. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Why are you edit-warring? The bot is making changes that are supported by consensus; your edits are contrary to consensus and are intentionally disruptive to the efforts of WP:WikiProject Disambiguation. I have deliberately avoided escalating this issue because it is really quite trivial in perspective, but if you want to go to WP:ANI, be my guest. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I bet making a link that points to redirect page is supported by consensus. Right. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It is explained in detail at User:RussBot#About the hatnote task. I hope you would take the time to read that and to read the policies it refers to, before making a complaint. And I do not understand what is so terrible about linking to a redirect page. Wikipedia has millions, if not tens or hundreds of millions, of links to redirect pages; redirects are cheap, and there is nothing wrong with using them. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Accidently linking to a redirect, I get. But deliberately changing a direct link to a page to a redirect is nothing more than disruptive and unnecessary. It has no purpose. An accidental redirect is understandable, fixable. But your changing a direct link to a redirect for some reason that doesn't even make sense (I read the mumbo-jumbo explanation with the unsorry "sorry" and it is BS) is again, disruptive and unnecessary. Don't like where it is, request a page move, do not under any circumstances, be deliberately disruptive to make some sort of POINT. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, weren't you blocked - several times - for wikihounding? It certainly looks like you're back to your old tricks. I've restored the hatnote as RussBot edited it; that is proper syntax per WP:INTDABLINK. I'm hoping this will go no further. --JaGa^talk 08:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Uh...wait does that have to do with anything we are discussing? Seriously. Anyway, the disambig page is on WTOP, you have created a redirect to the same damned page. Seriously, explain to me, in non-legalese, what is the point in this. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

In a nutshell, it's a way of marking links to disambiguation pages that don't need to be fixed by the WP:DPL project. It does no harm in terms of usability or performance. User:RussBot#About the hatnote task does a better job of explaining it than I could. --JaGa^talk 16:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Ummm....if they don't need to be fixed, then why mess with them? Remember the old adage: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"? I think it is at work here and this is where I am confused by this. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's definitely non-intuitive. At the WP:DPL, we generate lists of links to disambiguation pages that need fixing; that is, instead of pointing to a disambig, that link needs to go to an article. In rare cases, though, the link to the disambiguation page is intended and doesn't need to be "fixed". By invoking WP:INTDABLINK, and going through the (disambiguation) redirect, we're marking the link so the bots/Toolserver scripts will no longer identify it as needing work. --JaGa^talk 19:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Bear in mind that there are about 825,000 links to disambiguation pages that haven't been checked yet and presumably are mostly incorrect, and about another 100,000 that have been identified by at least one editor as intentional (that is, they contain "(disambiguation)" in the link text). Because of the size of these numbers, it is impossible for anyone to keep track manually of which links have and have not already been checked; we have to use the device of specially formatting intentional links to exclude them from the list of links that need to be fixed. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I got a better idea. You are an admin Russ, right? You can, without going to WP:RM, move a page over redirects or other stuff. Create a list, post it somewhere, like say WP:DPL of the ones that can be moved without RM or admin help by anyone and the ones that need RM/admin help move on your own with your admin tools. If possible, do that with a bot. This takes out any problems from people going "excuse me, WTF?" and gets everything in a direct link. Simple. No fuss, no muss. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

We've thought about that, but then we'd never be able to tell if a later editor had mistakenly added an unintentional disambig link to the page (which does happen from time to time). We would, in essence, be creating a list of pages where permanent disambig errors could go unchecked forever. bd2412 T 05:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. You could go and check them every 3 or 6 months (whichever you feel is appropriate) and see if anything new has been made in error. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

There are many tens of thousands of pages having such links. I would guess more than a hundred thousand and this point. Since a bot can not tell when a disambig link is intentional, who is going to manually check tens of thousands of pages, and possibly over a hundred thousand pages, every few months? We are using a grand solution to combat a problem of grand scale. bd2412 T 16:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Sarpac HEDP

Dear RnB,

The Sarpac HEDP warhead does not employ a shape charge. It is more like the DP warhead of the Marine SMAW, which is operates similar to a HEP/HESH warhead. One of the reasons the Malaysian para-military police found if of interest as being more useful against field fortifications and personnel. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 04:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear RnB, Ooops! My error. Sorry, please ignore the above as the ranting of a old man -- ie one of the best reasons to be old, as you always have an excuse. <GRIN> Jack Jackehammond (talk) 05:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, R'n'B/Archive 13! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 20:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Grant Harris listed at Redirects for discussion

I have asked for a discussion to address the redirect Grant Harris. Since the original creator and your bot were the only contributors, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Bwrs (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

CCCCD (disambiguation) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect CCCCD (disambiguation). Since you had some involvement with the CCCCD (disambiguation) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Oldag07 (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk on your >Commons account

Best. --Foroa (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of InvisionFree for deletion

The article InvisionFree is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Merrill Stubing (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Maori

Yes, there are about 2000 links (actually fewer, since many are in tables which are transcluded to multiple articles), which I've started fixing. However, many of them should link to Maori language, Maori culture, or even Cook Islanders instead. It's better to link to a dab page than to the wrong article. (There are also cases where the link is ambiguous and should be to the dab page, or where the lexical and semantic connections may disagree, as in "the Maori use the word X for Y", where "Maori" means the people but the reader following the link would more likely want the language, since that's really the topic of the link.) With the article moved, the links to the dab page will be gradually fixed, but without it being moved, the incorrect links will not be fixed. Best to keep the article at its more precise title. — kwami (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, the Maori people is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term Maori. Evidently you disagree, so I suggest you go through WP:RM and we'll see where the consensus comes out. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 03:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Generally, and this is suggested in the MOS, we have separate "X people" and "X language" articles, with "X" as a dab. Partially this is because it's often difficult to say which is primary (are the English people really the primary topic of 'English'? Also, while languages are of course dependent on their people, many peoples are defined as peoples by their languages), but also because many many articles simply link to "X" without consideration of whether that happens to be the people, language, culture, or sometimes even kingdom or food article. — kwami (talk) 08:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I've responded at Talk:Māori. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

List request

Greetings, friend. Can you generate for me a list of all pages under Category:Judicial branch of the United States government and its subcategories that contain disambig links? I plan to clean up all federal-judiciary-related articles, and might as well kill two birds with that stone. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me see what I can do. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Coming from you, those words generally precede spectacular results. bd2412 T 18:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Category redirect change proposal

Please see Commons:Commons talk:Only use category redirects where necessary#A solution. Thank you. Wknight94 ^talk 13:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Problems from last years Henry Nicholis/Henry Nicholas moves

I think I spoke with you last summer about these two articles. For some reason, the history original Talk:Henry Nicholis page has been deleted, and I assume it happened somewhere in those various redirects. Do you know how we might restore the full edit history? Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't find any indication that any talk page was deleted. The old history of Talk:Henry Nicholis appears to still exist in the history of Talk:Henry Nicholas. This seems to be the most extensive content the talk page ever had, which isn't saying much. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for looking into that. I assumed that since the article page was so much older than the talk page, and since there had been several moves and un-moves, etc., that there should have been a lot more material than the talk page. Weird. Thanks again. Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia user talk pages of shared IP addresses

Your bot is adding recursive categorisation - ie the same category - to the above category. This has been manually fixed once - but your bot knows better. Please educate your bot accordingly and then fix manually. [mistake], [mistake], Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I can put in a check for that, but it is an extremely rare situation. This happened because the category in question was a member of a parent category that was redirected to the child category. The bot has been running daily for almost 2.5 years and this has never happened before AFAIK. The only reason it happened twice is because you reverted another user's edit and put the page back in the redirected parent category. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

STiki

Sorry about that -- I missed the closing period, and thought that it was redirecting to itself. I missed that it was your bot that had made the correction, or I would have paid more attention. See WP:STiki for more details.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Note that RussBot's edits don't seem to be flagged as bot edits -- that's probably why it showed me the diff in the first place. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why not. They are flagged as bot edits on my watchlist, for example. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Cut n Paste move notice

Hey Russ, thanks for the message about the cut-n-paste move. This was something of a mess up by me, if I can be allowed to explain!

For many months now, Dundee City East and Dundee City West were redirected, on creation, to Dundee East and Dundee West, respectively. With the Scottish Parliament elections forthcoming, I thought it time to create separate articles for the former (the sucessor seats), and with so much information 'shared' between them, thought nothing of copy-and-pasting.

I realise now the error I made, and apologise of course for doing it that way. I think the pages have been moved around as it is subsequently, so hopefully all is now well!

Cheers

doktorb _words^deeds 18:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Red-line Names

I see that you have recently unlinked some individuals with "red-lined" names from the List of Florida State University people. I would be grateful if you wouldn't do that. Such links indicate that articles are needed for those notable individuals, or that the individuals are not notable after all and should be removed. Thanks Tim Ross (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem wasn't that the names were redlinked; they were blue-linked to pages that didn't actually contain any information about the people referred to on the list, which is worse. But I understand your concern; the unlinked names could be replaced with red links to correctly-titled articles. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 01:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Very good point. I'll replace the red-lines as appropriate. Thanks Tim Ross (talk) 10:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You beat me to it. Thanks! Tim Ross (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Hatnote change

That's really smart. Good work. —Designate (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/Disambiguation pages that link to disambiguation pages

Greetings friend! Can you replenish this list? I think it is far enough out of date to have many false positives, and many missing links at this point. Also, can you divide it into blocks of 200? I think the editors who work on it are motivated by the sense of progress which comes with knocking out a block, and those blocks of 500 have been a slog. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I created this report some time ago but never bothered to post it. --JaGa^talk 18:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting - I'll see if they can be used in conjunction. The vast majority of disambig links on disambig pages are intentional, and only need to be piped accordingly. bd2412 T 20:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Parties

There are some Parties that are named differently for example in North Dakota and Minnesota the Democratic parties are called the Democratic-NPL and the Democratic-Farmer-Labor-Party--Jack Cox (talk) 15:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Open circuit

I think your fix of disambiguation links to open circuit in multiple articles is misguided. The article electric circuit does not explain open circuit whereas the disambiguation page at least does that much. Ideally of course, the explanation should be in an article, but for now can I request that you undo this series of edits? SpinningSpark 19:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

A link to a disambig page is an error, as much as a spelling or grammatical error. If the article fails to contain the information that it should, then the article needs to be fixed or a new article needs to be made that covers the necessary information. However, merely restoring the disambig link is movement in the wrong direction. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, neither solution is really satisfactory, but I've undone the questioned edits for the time being. I don't think electric circuit, which is actually a redirect to electrical network, is the best target for these links. I agree that the disambig page isn't right, either, but something else needs to be done here. Maybe the short circuit article could be expanded a bit? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with BD214 that this is essentially an error, but the fact remains, afaik, that no suitable article currently exists. It is all very well saying that an article should be written/expanded, but until that is done (and I seriously doubt that there is enough to say on electrical open circuit to ever make an article) the only real alternative to a dab link is to unlink the term altogether. SpinningSpark 21:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Open-circuit voltage seems to describe the concept of an open circuit, at least by implication. Do you think this might be an appropriate target for the links? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I would say no. It is at leat confusing, and in many links would be downright wrong. An article could easily be created, but it would only amount to a dicdef which isn't liked on Wikipedia. The usual solution to dicdef type terms is to create a soft redirect to Wikitionary. Unfortunately they don't have open circuit, but they do have short circuit so they probably would accept an entry. SpinningSpark 23:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If a topic exists for which there is insufficient material to justify an article, but which falls within the coverage of an existing article, we can include a section in the article with the most appropriate coverage and resolve the links with a section redirect. bd2412 T 00:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but someone first has to do the work. I don't think it is terribly appropriate to shoehorn a definition into an article which does not already have a list of definitions. The most appropriate path would be to create a glossary, along the lines of glossary of rail terminology for instance, but obviously, this is a significant chunk of work. I might be willing to help, but I'm not doing it by myself. SpinningSpark 15:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Kniazhi Bairaky

In regards to redirection it is my fault. Somebody stated in the article Battle of Zhovti Vody that a village of Kryliv is the same as Knyazhi Bairaky, which is pretty much off the wall. When I looked it up I found out that the village of Kryliv was annihilated and later reestablished as Novogeorgievsk which in turn was flooded by the Kaniv water reservoir (meant to say Kremenchuk) in the Soviet period. All its residents were deported to the neighboring Svitlovodsk. However, whoever wrote that thing stating that Knyazhi Bairaky and Kryliv are same thing, I assume, is geographically or historically challenged. The place of Knyazhi Bairaki still exists although it is a long abandoned settlement near Zhovto-Oleksandrivsk on the border of Dnipropetrovsk and Kirovohrad regions in the Central Ukraine. Kryliv was located near Chyhyryn which is some distance north of it. Once again, I apologize for redirecting it in that way. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Pescara train station vers Pescara Centrale train station

Moin lieber R'n'B, es gibt mehrere Stationen in Pescara, Central, Porta Nova, usw. Daher sehe ich das nicht als glücklich an, hier nur Pescara Train Station zu schreiben. Tschüß --Raboe001 (talk) 17:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Moin dear R' n' B, it gives several stations in Pescara, Pescara Centrale, Porta Mova, etc. from there regards I that not as happy to write here only Pescara Train station. Tschüß --Raboe001 (talk) 17:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

No comprendo. If you are talking about a category redirect, you need to talk to the editor who put the redirect template on the category. The bot doesn't decide what to redirect, it just follows instructions. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful advice

Russ,

Thank you for your message and also cleaning up my mess on the Central Bank of Ireland. I will know in future and thank you for making Wikipedia a better place to further knowledge.

Glic16 (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Bad dab: John o'Gaunt

Hi, I have fixed a dab which you made recently. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Disambig Project

Hello! I know that you have done a lot for cleaning up the disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. I thought that you might be the person to ask about a problem I have discovered. In cleaning up incomplete disambiguation pages, I noticed that there are probably some links that redirect to a disambiguation page, where the talk page for that link still has the {{DisambigProject}} template on it. I'm guilty of creating a few of these myself, but do you know where I could find a list of redirects that are still considered part of the project, so that the template can be removed? Thanks for all of your help! Fortdj33 (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Off the top of my head, I'm not sure any such list exists, although it might be possible to generate one through a database query. Let me think about it a little when I have some time. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Daily Update complete

With 13 minutes to spare! Cheers, --JaGa^talk 23:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Rats, the script was set to exit if there had been no update in over 24 hours, so it stopped running before the update was done. I'll have to rewrite that. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 00:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Constantin_Brâncoveanu

An article that you have been involved in editing, Constantin_Brâncoveanu , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Blackash have a chat 06:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Tilden Stewart Holley

Thanks for cleaning up Tilden Stewart Holley, I appreciate the help. MetaCow (talk) 05:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Pari Center for New Learning

I am not clear why you deleted this page on Wikipedia. It refers to the cultural Center (www.paricenter.com) which is very active with conferences, courses and a visitor's program dpeat@fdavidpeat.com info@paricenter.com

I would like the page restored so it can be updated David peat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdpeat (talk • contribs) 13:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the page (about 18 months ago!) because it did not contain any indication that the topic meets the notability guideline, which I suggest you review. Also, since your user name appears to suggest that you may be a person with a connection to this organization, you might also wish to review the conflict of interest guideline. In any case, per your request, I have restored the deleted material at User:Fdpeat/Pari Center for New Learning for your use. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

KSAH

Thanks for your work on this bit of disambiguation. The trick was that the remaining infobox sister station instances of "KSAH" needed to become KSAH (AM) because KRIO-FM had its call sign changed to KSAH-FM. I've updated both links in all the relevant infoboxes. - Dravecky (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Dundee East (Scottish Parliament constituency)

Hi just to let you know this was not a cut and paste move, there should be two separate articles for each constituency. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 21:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

"Foo and Bar" disambig pages

I recently nominated Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses for deletion because the links on the page were not ambiguous (the only links being Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs and Jehovah's Witnesses practices). This is not the first time I have seen such a page, and if this is allowed, then in theory anyone could make a disambig page titled Army boots and pants containing only links to "Army boots" and "Army pants", or even "Floor lamps and butterflies" which may refer to "Floor lamps" or "Butterflies". I'd like to see how many similar pages there are. Can you generate a list of all disambig pages that contain " and " in the title? Cheers! bd2412 T 15:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

On wikibreak for the next week; shouldn't be a problem after that. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The next week? But I need it now! Just kidding, a week is fine. Thanks, and cheers! bd2412 T 17:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

User:RussBot/Compound disambiguation titles/001 and User:RussBot/Compound disambiguation titles/002 are ready for your perusal, but I think you will find a vast preponderance of false positives. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Substantially culled, combined, and moved to Wikipedia:Disambiguation/Compound disambiguation titles. I've noticed some recurring issues, mostly relating to the problem I raised above. There are a number of pages that list members of collaborations like Lunt and Fontanne, which is not ambiguous but is an unambiguous reference to the collaboration itself. There are also many instances of pages like Google and censorship or Jesus and history, containing links to pages broadly relating to the topics but generally not to pages with similar names. bd2412 T 03:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Commons problems ?

Problems ? --Foroa (talk) 07:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

FA/GA dn tagging drive proposal

I believe that good articles and featured articles are likely to be watched by a lot of people who would be keen to correct errors pointed out (or tagged) in those articles. I propose that we have your bot go through the entire project and add a {{dn}} to every single disambig link in every GA/FA in Wikipedia. My guess is that the article maintainers will rush to fix all of them, and we regular disambiguators won't need to lift a finger. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

That would definitely require a bot request, and I think you ought to make a proposal to the article assessment project(s) first to see if they are OK with the idea. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea - and I think you're right about the scramble to fix - but I worry that a bot may not be approved since you'd be stepping outside the rules for {{dn}}: The tag is intended to be used only when an editor has tried to fix the link but not succeeded. Most links to disambiguation pages do not have or need this tag. --JaGa^talk 15:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I have two ready responses to that. First, for the past month or so, despite our continuing efforts, the ever-rising tide of disambig links has left us stuck at around 780,000 erroneous links. If we wait to get around to trying to fix all the links first, we may just never get there. Second, featured articles and even good articles should not contain bad links, and (since most editors are not running scripts that highlight such links) will continue to do so until they are either found by us (unlikely, per point one), or tagged by us. bd2412 T 16:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

We don't necessarily have to use a bot - there are less than 4000 featured/good articles with dablinks. I just so happen to have this report which, though far from perfect, sums up the situation. We could always go through them quickly - if it's obvious, fix it, if not, give it the ol' {{dn}}. --JaGa^talk 00:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

We could also tag them all and let editors who maintain those pages fix them while we put our own efforts into fixing 4,000 other pages, and at the end of that time have 8,000 fewer disambig links to contend with. Let's put some of the burden on the shoulders of those most responsible for the problem, in this instance. bd2412 T 03:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Although you both make good points, we're not going to resolve this issue here. I'd suggest WT:WikiProject Good articles as a good place to seek wider discussion. There doesn't seem to be a comparable centralized discussion point for featured articles; maybe WT:Featured article criteria would be a place to make an inquiry. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

True. I dropped a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles#Disambiguation links. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Having gotten no response there, I have dropped {{dablinks}} tags on the dozen or so GA status articles having eight or more disambig links, on the theory that eight is definitely too many for such an article. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Wyoming Highway 87

Hello R'n'B, I see what you are saying in regards to WYO 87 not being mentioned in the 789 article. I was going off of http://www.aaroads.com/west/wy-000.html (see 87) which says the route existed around 1930 until 1940. In addition aaroads says WYO 87 was replaced by WYO 330 which can be seen on this 1946 map[1] over present day 789. If I am wrong please correct, thanks.

Thanks, Ngs61 (talk) 19:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

LGBT articles of Brazil

Hello! I am Brazilian and I need of you to correct my translation edits, please help me in the Changing legal gender assignment in Brazil, LGBT rights in Brazil, Recognition of same-sex unions in Brazil, Age of consent in Brazil, Prejudice in the Brazilian LGBT community. 00:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC) User: Hentzer

April 2011

Sorry, too much of an itchy trigger finger there. The bright red and "blanking" tag caught my eye before the edit summary did. I re-reverted my reversion. Sorry! Gscshoyru (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Chairperson

Perhaps then, Russ, you'll help with the move backlogs for me? Wik idea 20:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Media Claim

Happened to notice that reporter/editor from Sun Media Brian Lilley accuses fellow reporter Andrew Potter of writing his own Wikipedia article. (This doesn't appear to be true). I noticed you've been following this article and edited it some, so thought you'd be interested: http://blogs.canoe.ca/lilleyspad/cbc/andrewpotterdoesntknowsquat/ --kt 12:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathleen5454 (talk • contribs)

Nautical Science CSD

For some reason CSD.py has been showing Nautical Science as being tagged for 15 days, although the page has already been deleted. Would it be possible to fix this? Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be gone now. Maybe I fixed it without doing anything? :-) R'n'B (call me Russ) 00:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it was back this morning, but I've killed it for sure now. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

To be announced

Check it out! bd2412 T 21:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I will check it out once it is announced.... :-) Oh, I get it. Yes, that looks great! --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - cheers! bd2412 T 22:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

OTH

If you can redirect all the episodes on the OTH Template to their respected seasons page, then please do, and the current re directions go to the episode names conception. B.Davis2003 (talk) 08:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Template:Taxobox binomial authority disambig links

I've noticed an annoying habit of Template:Taxobox-using editors to employ only the surname of the binomial authority (which is, in many cases, a disambig link like Lamb or Dean. Can you generate a list of disambig links occuring in taxoboxes (and, if possible, bot-tag all these links with {{dn}}). Cheers! bd2412 T 13:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Unfortunately, there seem to be some editors in other contexts who have the even more annoying habit of using WP:INTDABLINKs when they don't know what the correct target is; not only is this wrong, but it makes the incorrect links hard to find because all our tools assume (probably incorrectly) that editors know what they are doing when they create these links. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that the correct link in a taxobox could ever be an intentional link to the disambig page. List them all. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

A private note to talk page stalkers

Yes, I know you're out there. :-) I assume that you are someone who is particularly interested in finding and fixing links to disambiguation pages. If so, you might want to try a script I have written that highlights those links in a distinctive color while you are viewing Wikipedia pages. If you do try it, please let me know, and leave me some feedback about it. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

List of township-level divisions of X Province [of the PRC]

In the future, when you run into lists such as those that are under construction, could I ask you to leave DAB work to me? I need to be adding all of these to the DAB pages themselves and possibly creating some re-directs to DAB pages. Thanks –HXL's Roundtable and Record 20:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

If there is some indication on the page that it is under construction, I will be happy to respect that for a reasonable time. If a page has been under construction since 2009, for example, I would probably be less likely to defer. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Włocławek, DGS disambiguation

DGS in Włocławek is a manufacturer of closures for glass containers Jamzewsizazamcze (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Water Tribe

In this edit, you took out the {{R to disambiguation page}} template even though the target article remained a disambiguation page! I think this is a mistake. Could you please restore it? :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 08:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If you read the documentation on Template:R to disambiguation page, you will see that it is meant for use only on redirects that are targets for intentional links to disambiguation page; that is, redirects with "(disambiguation)" in the title. Water Tribe does not fall within that category. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Vital dates for human name disambig pages

I find that it is much easier to disambiguate human names and surnames (such as those in the frequently recurring binomial nomenclature authorities) when the disambig page lists the birth/death dates of the persons named there. Whether we do this is very hit-or-miss, mostly miss. Can your bot be made to pluck those dates from the articles for persons listed and insert them in a parenthetical following the name? Ideally this would work in such a way that "Roger Dodger (philatelist), an American philatelist" would become "Roger Dodger (philatelist) (1924-1997), an American philatelist", ignoring, obviously, lines for which the pertinent dates were already present. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

That does sound like a good idea. However, it is one of those things that requires parsing the page text to find the relevant information. Not impossible, but much more complicated than the scripts I usually work with. I know there is at least one bot now that does something like this to populate the "persondata" metadata; maybe that operator could take this on. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Does it require parsing the page text? I was thinking that it could just look at birth and death categories. bd2412 T 16:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

This approach has some potential and I've done a few test edits using it today. However, it cannot be done by a bot, because there are many cases that require human editor review. You'd be surprised how often there is a date of birth or death on a {{hndis}} page that is different from the date appearing in the article. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Palestine categories are all contested

Chesdovi (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the note. I am not impressed by your apparent belief that you can read my mind. Read the guidelines: either a category is empty, or it is not. Saying that it is empty is a fact, not a point of view. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry. I did not want them to be deleted by mistake. They have already been tagged and de-tagged while discussion is under way. Chesdovi (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Piping hatnotes

Wikipedia:INTDABLINK states, "Do not pipe disambiguation links. Showing the entire linked article title avoids confusion, which is the reason for the link in the first place." There are no exceptions given. However, RussBot is piping hatnotes per this diff. - BilCat (talk) 04:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. When I started this task, the bot did not pipe the hatnotes, but this led to a large number of complaints and an admin blocked the bot. The consensus reached was that the bot could continue if it piped the hatnotes. Evidently, the guideline you quoted no longer accurately reflects current consensus. However, it does not bother me in the slightest if you or another editor chooses to unpipe one of these links. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Guidelines out of date? On WP?? Never! ;) If you can give me a link to the consenus on the bot being allowed to pipe links, that would be helpful. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 00:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The most relevant discussion is here, and there was also an earlier one here. As noted in the first link, the WP:INTDABLINK language that you quoted in your opening message was actually written by yours truly. :-) --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been typing it so much, I went ahead and created an even shorter shortcut: WP:INTDAB. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, for your help fixing the template {{Sexual slang}}. Much appreciated. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Replag

Hey, the replag difference is happening again, and I do think it's due to our tools running on different servers - check out this report: Replag. I'm on s1 and you must be on s2 or s3. --JaGa^talk 16:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, we both have to be on s1 because that's the only replica that contains enwiki. I'm using the server string "enwiki-p.rrdb.toolserver.org". --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, if your tools rely on a user database (mine doesn't), then you would have to be on the server that hosts those databases, even if it is the backup. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm all about the user database. --JaGa^talk 20:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Supreme Court

Each time I backed out the other editor's changes, I went back and looked at the comment that you changed, and even though I backed out your change, the comment always looked okay to me (and wasn't showing up in the text). Frankly, I'm confused as to what you changed. When I look at the diff, it looks like you changed a solid dash to to two hyphens, but when I edit the article, both before your change and after my reversion, I see two hyphens. I apologize for causing you any extra work, but I'm truly at sea here.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

No apology necessary. I'm guessing that it was a dash/hyphen issue; it's very hard for me to tell the difference between a - and a – in the edit box, even though they look different in a proportionally-spaced font. It's just interesting that nobody, including me, noticed for well over a month that a large chunk of the article had disappeared! --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to start. Clearly, I have tunnel vision in some instances. I was looking at the article to make sure the comment itself wasn't appearing in it. I never looked at the material after the paragraph affected by the comment, so I didn't notice that a huge piece of material was missing. I also didn't know that a mark that looks like a hyphen could be something else. I was expecting to see just one long mark, and I saw two what I thought were hyphens.

I'm not surprised, actually, that no one noticed the fact that the material was missing. I don't know about other editors, but I generally read an article when I first look at it, but after that I tend to watch changes to the article without paying attention to the parts I've already read. Assuming I reviewed the comment when it was introduced, I probably just didn't notice the problem it created. It's an odd comment anyway, so I have a feeling I didn't review it at all. It's great that you noticed, even belatedly, the absence of the material and that you stuck in there afterwards to make sure your edit stuck. My guess is the word "sloppy" in the other editor's edit summary may have referred to my reversion of your change, but I can't be sure. He hasn't yet responded to the discussion I opened up on the Talk page about his changes. However, after his use of the word "sloppy", I went back and looked again at what I'd done and still didn't see it. Sigh.

Finally, as for your removal of the comment, I don't see why the comment needs to be there, but I confess I don't understand your citation to Felker, which specifically stated: "We conclude that although the Act does impose new conditions on our authority to grant relief, it does not deprive this Court of jurisdiction to entertain original habeas petitions." That doesn't mean that many original habeas petitions are filed in the Supreme Court each year, but it does mean they can be.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The citation to Felker was actually referring to fn.1 in Justice Souter's concurrence, in which he says, "Such a petition is commonly understood to be 'original' in the sense of being filed in the first instance in this Court, but nonetheless for constitutional purposes an exercise of this Court's appellate (rather than original) jurisdiction. See Oaks, The 'Original' Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Supreme Court, 1962 S. Ct. Rev. 153." Perhaps a better citation would be to Ex parte Bollman and Swartwout, 4 Cranch (8 U.S.) 75 (1806), in which the Court initially held that an original petition for habeas falls within its appellate, not its original, jurisdiction, thus distinguishing Marbury v. Madison. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I want to get into an extended discussion about habeas, particularly because I think removing the comment was a good idea irrespective of Felker, but I see what you're saying.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)