Email this user

User talk:Wbm1058

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


Disambiguation link notifications[edit]

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

My content creator's to-do list has items so old they've grown mold[edit] I moved them to the /Content to-do items subpage. Someday maybe I'll get to these... Wbm1058 (talk) 03:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nomination of Warren (Porridge) for deletion[edit]

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

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

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

Merge of Newtonian fluid and viscous stress tensor[edit]

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

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

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

Deep gratitude[edit]

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

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


Hi Wbm1058,

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

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

Polygraph examiner[edit]

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

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

Talk page errors[edit]

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

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

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

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

I found one more:

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

Duplicate template parameters[edit]

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

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

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

Headings of Requested move[edit]

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

For editor convenience. See the discussion Here. This ensures that section headers are unique, i.e., so there will not be two sections on the same talk page both titled "Requested move". The {{Requested move}} documentation explains how customized section headers can still be used, see Template:Requested move § Custom header. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I've found (err, a beta version of my bot has found) three open RM's which are malformed, e.g., this one. The bot is not picking up the section links for these. It doesn't work when there are comments inserted between the section header and the RM template. Having the template write the section header, at least initially ensures that doesn't happen. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I just noticed this comment, which was posted a few days later, which I overlooked before: "It's nice that there is a default header with such precision, but if the editor proposes the change using the "new section" button and has to leave the section header blank, it's unfortunate that we end up having a new requested move section with no edit summary; there's no quick way for editors with the page on their watchlists to figure out that a move was requested. Would there be a way to check for the bot to check for new move requests that have no edit summaries and add some sort of dummy edit to notify editors that a move discussion is what was added to the page?" I'm chewing on what the best way to do this is. The contested technical requests set up by {{RMassist}} automatically populate the edit summary, but that only works when clicking on a link. Sure would be nice if there was a way to populate edit summaries by just using a template. But a followup bot edit is a good idea too. – Wbm1058 (talk) 11:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Re: Proposed merge template[edit]

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

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

Module documentation and test cases[edit]

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

Module:Syrian Civil War map is in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded.
I edited Module:Syrian Civil War map/doc, and created Module:Syrian Civil War map/testcases.
Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War used to transclude {{Syrian Civil War detailed map}}, until substituted.
Template:Syrian Civil War detailed map loads Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map.
Template:Syrian Civil War map (created 21 February 2015‎) . . . Wbm1058 (talk) 03:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


The list at WP:RMTR now does not seem to have any 'discuss' links. I only see the 'move' link there. Was this intentional? Perhaps the vanishing of 'discuss' was an unintended side effect of your recent change. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, Ed. Right, that's not how I intended it to work. That's the "require opt-in", version, and I intended to put up the "require opt-out" version. I swear I tested this, and it was working OK in the sandbox. I'll see if I can get it working as I intended. Sorry, I should have been paying closer attention after implementation. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
EdJohnston, OK, I think I fixed it now. I just observed that Anthony used the cut-paste method when the link wasn't there, rather than asking me about it. The idea is that you're not supposed to do that if the link isn't there. Do you think I should add a more explicit note to that effect in the what I expect will be, rare case when the user actually sets the "discuss" parameter to NO?
See my test here. The second line is the live version, and the third is the sandbox version. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
The first of these three is what we will be seeing in the released version? I predict that that the 'discuss=no' option may hardly ever be used. It is hard to imagine an actual person wanting their move to be performed, willing to list it at RMTR, and unwilling to participate in a full discussion. I would be against adding more software support for such an implausible option. If you want to preserve this example as a test case somewhere, it would be useful to display somewhere the unexpanded source showing what parameters were passed to RMassist. EdJohnston (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
EdJohnston, This 'discuss=no' option, which I agree will hardly ever be used, is my response/accommodation based on the discussion at WT:RM#Automated mishandling of a request and my followup in the next section WT:RM#Smoothing the transition from technical to contested requests. I'm not sure how I should proceed. I haven't gotten feedback from anyone else on that talk page. The lack of willingness to compromise has turned this into a big time sink for me, and I'm getting frustrated with that. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Note that this parameter was added by my last edit, and is documented at Template:RMassist. If I remove it then we still need to update the documentation and instructions on the new procedure. I'm not sure I can boldly do that given the objections raised on the talk page. Not sure if we need to start an RfC, or do it some other way. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
One approach is to interpret that discussion as No consensus for a change in RMassist. Then ask anyone not happy with the situation to open an RfC. So far as I can tell, only a single editor was unhappy with the status quo. EdJohnston (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I just closed one technical move and it seemed to work. Hope you will be keeping this version of the template for a while :-). EdJohnston (talk) 03:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


A gummi bear holding a sign that says "Thank you"
Thank you for using VisualEditor and sharing your ideas with the developers.

Hello, Wbm1058,

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

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

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

Unsubscribe from this list Sign up for VisualEditor's multilingual newsletterTranslate the user guide

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

Emergency repair needed for Template:Rfd2, if you can do it...[edit]

Hey Wbm1058, I was doing some edits on Template:Rfd2 that I realized broke the template, but then realized that the fix might be something similar to what you did with Template:RMassist to forward the editor to the subpage in the event that they are on Wikipedia:Requested moves when they click on the link in Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. When I performed this edit, I essentially broke the edit notices if the links are clicked on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion since {{FULLPAGENAME}} pulls the name of the page it was clicked, even if it is clicked from a transcluded page (which I didn't realize until now.) Is there a way that you might know to have {{FULLPAGENAME}} pull/return the name of the subpage (the page which the link is actually located) in the event the link is present on a page transclusion (such as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion)? Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. Steel1943 (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

{{{|safesubst:}}}#ifeq:{{ {{{|safesubst:}}}FULLPAGENAME }} | Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests | <we're on the subpage, do this> | <we're NOT on the subpage, do this>
since in your application, I believe that the subpage name changes when it's relisted:
{{{|safesubst:}}}#ifeq:{{ {{{|safesubst:}}}FULLPAGENAME }} | Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion | <we're on the main page, do this> | <we're on another page (likely a subpage), do this>
Hope that helps. I'm not that familiar with the internal workings of Rfd, so would need to study it more to give you a more specific suggestion. Maybe you can play with it in the template sandbox. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I vaguely understand what has to be done, but not sure if I am capable of implementing it without breaking something more. I guess the way to resolve this the best is if there is a magic word or parser function that runs a check if the page is a subpage or not. Then, that magic word or parser function (I get all of these terms mixed up sometimes) would replace the text "Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests" in your first example. Steel1943 (talk) 02:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
@Steel1943: OK, I have a test version in the sandbox. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 9 has my "mechanical hardware" test. It is transcluding the "keep/retarget/delete" links as desired. The main page Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion shows "[ Closure: (@subpage) ]" instead. With requested moves, the subpage is always the same so RMassist just hardcodes the link to that. Here the link changes every day, so the trick is to figure out the name of the subpage that's transcluded on that section of the main page. I'm not clear on what the problem is that you're trying to solve. Wbm1058 (talk) 04:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Wbm1058, if your sandbox does what I think it does, it solves the problem. The problem I am trying to solve is: After my edits, those "keep/retarget/delete" links produced an innacurrate link when clicked on their transclusion listed on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Since {{FULLPAGENAME}} returns the page name that the reader is viewing, if the reader is viewing Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, if the link is clicked, then the edit notice generated will appear as "Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#PAGENAME closed as ..." instead of "Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/YYYY MMMM DD closed as ..." (which is how the edit notice will appear if the link is clicked on the subpage/page that is being transcluded), which break links in the generated edit notices. So, yeah, if what you did to the sandbox does what I think it does, you just fixed the problem, and much thanks! Steel1943 (talk) 07:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I thought that the re-listings were kept on the same page. I see how that could make the page grow too large, and indeed recall it bumping into the transclusion limit sometimes. So, it makes sense to move re-listings to the relist date, and then transcluding prevents the need for manually updating those edit-summary links. However, now it's a little harder to get to the subpages without those direct links to them. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


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

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

Proposed Mergers[edit]

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

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

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

Vanessa Ferlito's date of birth[edit]

Hello, I work with Ms. Ferlito. I would like to know who you are and why you keep changing her information?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Roman1382 (talkcontribs) 14:21, 26 May 2015

@Roman1382: Please read Talk:Vanessa Ferlito. Perhaps we should just remove her birth date, since this is apparently disputed. IMDB says 1977. But I do see now that TV guide says 1980. It would help if you provided sources. Regards, Wbm1058 (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

IMDB did state 1980 but it was changed once the Wikipedia page was altered. The New York Magazine article from the 90's was mistaken as well. As her representatives, we will be keeping a closer eye on these sites and take it from here. Thank you and have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roman1382 (talkcontribs) 16:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The Simpsons - include size problem[edit]

Could you please outline and explain the include size problem at WT:TV. Your solution is not at all ideal as it contains redundant text (most notably the episode summaries) and will result in errors over time due to now having two episode lists for each season (this is one of the main reasons we transclude!). It's also defeating the purpose of splitting into individual seasons. However, the problem is obviously very real and will likely appear at other pages, so project-wide understanding is required. We may even be able to address this in MOS:TV or provide some other resolution that is more ideal. --AussieLegend () 10:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


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

My RfA[edit]

Homemade chocolate chip cookies, fresh out of the oven, November 2009.jpg
Pavlov's RfA reward

Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Support so you get a whopping three cookies, fresh from the oven!
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC).

Speedy deletion nomination of Pygments[edit]

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

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

A tag has been placed on Pygments requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. MopSeeker (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

2010 NCAA Division I Outdoor Track and Field Championships[edit]

Thanks for your help on the article. I ran out of gas last night and fell asleep with the computer literally on my lap. When I undertook this particular meet, I was experimenting with trying to semi-automatically wikify the massive results document. I've found lots more results to post, but I haven't hit on the answer to clean up so many of these errors. It turns even the correction into a massive editing project. So I deleted a lot of your cleanup, not because you did anything wrong, but that you cleaned up stuff (like individual field event attempts) that is not commonly reported in results like this. I just never got back to clean that out before you edited. Ultimately my goal is to have all of these results look the same, year after year. Trackinfo (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

No problem, I know what you mean about running out of gas; sometimes I do that in the middle of the afternoon! Right, I was thinking the individual attempts was too much information for an encyclopedia. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

re-open Ceres (dwarf planet) move[edit]

We did not just have the discussion to move Ceres (dwarf planet) → Ceres. We had a discussion to move Ceres (dwarf planet) → 1 Ceres. That is a totally different move request. This is to remove the disambiguation page and make Ceres the prime topic. The old one was whether to change the name to 1 Ceres. It may have the same result but it should run its course. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Fyunck(click), I understand that, though someone implied otherwise in the discussion. Ceres (dwarf planet) has been subject of many move discussions (see the list at the top of Talk:Ceres (dwarf planet), including the same request earlier this year. The most recent discussion was running 6–2 against.
I learned a few things today. I did not know the name of the largest asteroid, nor did I know that it comprised approximately one third of the mass of the entire asteroid belt. I was especially surprised to read that a NASA spacecraft entered orbit around Ceres earlier this year. In contrast, I was taught that Pluto was one of the planets as a child, and note the extensive recent media coverage of the recent first-ever flyby. Hence, that dwarf planet doesn't share top billing with Pluto (mythology). I do recall another recent high-profile NASA mission, which landed on a comet. Why this mission didn't get the same coverage as that or Pluto is a puzzle to me. It seems that this Ceres kind of missed a great opportunity to move more into the spotlight. The presence of another space-based entity, CERES (satellite), doesn't help either. Nor the several organizations using the name. You can't just compare the dwarf planet with the mythological Roman goddess, you need to consider whether the dwarf planet predominates over all other uses combined. It's a high bar to cross. I see what happens when a marginal primary topic is designated as such. Editors will link to the goddess thinking it's the primary topic (it is, if mythology is a subject you're passionate about), leaving a link to the incorrect topic which is not flagged for correction the same way that links to disambiguation are.
I suppose I'm open to reconsidering this if you have a persuasive argument that hasn't been made yet that you think might turn the tide and get some to change their mind. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
You might misunderstand me. I am not necessarily for changing it from Ceres (dwarf planet) to Ceres. I did not vote as I was weighing the pros and cons. I am for proper procedure. That last time this was discussed in February it was not resolved, it was no consensus. The time before that it was suggested to make it the primary topic.... actually there was no other time per the talk page move request header. These things usually go for a minimum of 7 to 10 days... this went 18 hours! I will make it a formal challenge of the closure at the proper board but I thought to convince you to let this run it's course to see if we get consensus this time. To cut it short is not the way it works at wikipedia unless this exact same move request just happened a few weeks ago (and sometimes not even then if it was no consensus). Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, I reopened it. Noting that the word "snow" is not found in WP:RM/CI. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much. But as I observe right this second, the first attempt was pretty mixed and ended in no-consensus. This attempt (after less than a day) was standing at solid 5-2 against with one extra inclined to oppose when it was closed. If you felt this was SNOW after 18 hours, then I question your judgment on what constitutes snow at wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Keep in mind that I only came upon this page because the editor who initially "closed" it put it into Category:Fulfilled page move requests (or did my bot flag it as malformed? Maybe both). So I was only trying to clean it up. This is not something I would have closed this way on my own initiative. Based not only on the trend of the current request, but also the track record of the other recent requests, it seems to me that this is a longshot at best. So, I reluctantly reverted the previous malformed close, as you have appealed, which is within your rights. Pointing out the lack of provisions for "snow" in the closing instructions is more intended as an explanation to the editor I reverted. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
It was flagged as malformed. Obviously wouldn't have been in Category:Fulfilled page move requests, but that's another issue I patrol for. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough and thanks again. I just posted something as a comment/discussion there to try and break the logjam. It probably won't help at all but at least I can say I looked at things and tried my best to gain consensus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


Didn't remember that it had previously gone to AfD, so thanks for linking it in the edit summary. And thanks for fixing the double redirect—it's usually easier for me to just let the bots handle it – czar 18:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Sometimes, particularly with more complex reshuffling, the redirect chain can get broken, and if they don't get fixed right away, they can redirect to the wrong title for months or years. Can happen with edit warring. Maybe not an issue here, but I generally play it safe if the cleanup isn't too time consuming. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
For your diligence toward getting Template:NRHP Focus working again. Awesome. ―Mandruss  21:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

And for template NRHP-PA. Absolutely awesome. Do you have a bot that can do the replacement for all 3,000 articles, or should I join in the effort? Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I've been contemplating a request at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval, so that I can login as Bot1058 and turn on AWB's automated-mode. Unfortunately, that's a lot of procedural red-tape. Do you use AWB? Wbm1058 (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Reopened move discussion at Talk:Greyshirt (comics)[edit]

Hello, Wbm! I'm asking you about this because you fixed the formatting of the relist at this discussion, so I gather you are very familiar with how the RM listing system works. Here is the situation: The RM at Talk:Greyshirt (comics) was created on July 20 and relisted on July 30. On August 6 it was NAC closed by Kwamikagami. However, one of the discussants objected to the close, and Kwami gave them permission to reopen the discussion, which they did. How do we get it back onto the "current discussions" list at WP:RM? (I am the admin who carried out the closure result, so I'm trying to make sure things get done correctly.) --MelanieN (talk) 13:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you - that was quick! --MelanieN (talk) 13:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
No problem. Just needed to restore the {{Requested move/dated}} template. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI[edit]

Today's Article For Improvement star.svg
Hello, Wbm1058. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement, a project dedicated to significantly improving articles with collaborative editing in a week's time.

Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Article nomination board. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. Thanks for your consideration. North America1000 09:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Redirect template listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Redirect template. Since you had some involvement with the Redirect template redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix (talk) 04:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Stern Stewart & Co[edit]

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

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

A tag has been placed on Stern Stewart & Co requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. DGG ( talk ) 23:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

If you think it's notable please add the sources. DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
See my additional comments at Talk:Stern Stewart & Co. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 12:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Your edit at WP:Article titles - some advice[edit]

Regarding your recent edit here ... a word of advice: in situations where an article is used as an example in a guideline or policy, and that article becomes the subject of a current RM or RFC... it is usually considered disruptive to edit the guideline or policy while the RM or RFC is open. Better to wait until after the RM or RFC closes. In this case, I don't think your edit was an improper attempt to influence the outcome of RM... but it could be taken that way. Blueboar (talk) 12:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I just closed it, and am still mopping up some loose ends. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 12:22, 4 September 2 015 (UTC)
Ah... so I now see... the RM hadn't been closed (yet) when I wrote the above... for the future, may I suggest closing the RM first and then adjusting the policy or guideline to reflect the closure. No harm, no foul. Blueboar (talk) 12:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of content forking[edit]

There is a discussion on WP:Content forking currently on Drv for "Poetry in the early 21st century" concerning possible changes to improve the WP:Content forking page. Could you glance at this. MusicAngels (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Article move request[edit]

It would be nice to have these two articles moved over redirects:

I assume that both will be uncontroversial. The first to create space for a redirect (to American grass spider & Eurasian grass spider), and the second which has the accepted name and synonym switched around, cf. [2] JMK (talk) 10:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

JMK, done. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks so much. Saves me having to learn all those templates. JMK (talk) 13:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Char-Broil and Charbroiler are NOT related[edit]

I can't figure out how to remove the line that was added upon publication. "This article is about the "Char-Broil" brand. For the generic cooking device, see Charbroiler." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbdig (talkcontribs) 15:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Cbdig: Thanks for pointing that out. I've straightened out more loose ends relating to Char-Broil, Charbroiler, and Broiler (disambiguation) as a result of your bringing this to my attention. I confess it's taken me some time to realize that Char-Broil actually makes barbecue grills, not charbroilers; the primary difference between those being that the former is used for light-duty residential outdoor cooking, while the latter is used for commercial indoor cooking. I had thought that this was an example of a genericized trademark, but now I see that's not exactly the case here. I see that Cyungbluth, the main author of the charbroiler article, is an engineer for Star Manufacturing International, whose product line includes Ultra-Max Gas Charbroilers. Now I'm curious to see which came first. I see from Bradley's website that the Char-Broil name was introduced in 1948. The charbroiler article doesn't get into history, but Google's Ngram Viewer first shows the term "charbroil" in 1945 (see here) and neither seems to have much use until the 1960s and 1970s (about when fast food started taking off, and Char-Broil began to mass-produce gas grills). Interesting. No clear answer to the "which was first?" question.
So regarding the line added at the top. We call that a WP:Hatnote, the purpose of which is WP:Disambiguation. In other words, we specifically use hatnotes to redirect readers to other unrelated topics. Links to related topics are generally put in a "see also" section near the bottom of articles. The question here is whether someone looking for information on the commercial-duty indoor charbroilers might search for that topic using the term "Char-Broil". As that is a capitalized proper (brand) name, including a hyphen, I think such a search would be unlikely. So, on that basis, I'll remove the hatnote. Regards, Wbm1058 (talk) 15:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
However, I think readers searching for Char-Broil are likely to search on "Charbroil", so the hatnote is appropriate on the Charbroiler article (as well as for helping readers find information about the G.I. Joe character). Wbm1058 (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
@Wbm1058: Thank you. I think a redirect from "charbroil" to Char-Broil would be appropriate. I've added the redirect from "charbroil" to "Char-Broil." I do not think that Charbroil the G.I. Joe character relates to the Charbroiler cooker.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbdig (talkcontribs) 20:00, 16 September 2015
@Cbdig: Please sign your talk page edits by typing four tildes (~~~~). Wikipedia has a concept called "primary topic" (see WP:Primary topic). There can only be one primary topic for the word "charbroil". I think most editors would lean toward the verb, i.e., you "charbroil" meat on a charbroiler; hence we redirect to that topic. Then we put a hatnote there to help readers find the secondary topic(s) for the term. Now if we make Char-Broil the primary topic, then we will need to put a hatnote on that article to help readers find the other topics (charbroiler and the the G.I. Joe character). So not only will we need to restore the hatnote that you wanted deleted, but also we'll need to add Charbroil (G.I. Joe) to the hatnote. Alternatively, if there is no primary topic for the term, Charbroil would be a disambiguation page. – Wbm1058 (talk) 20:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Garry Newman[edit]

You're correct; Garry Newman redirected to Facepunch Studios. However, Garry newman (note the capitalisation) redirected to Garry's Mod, at least until I altered it to be consistent with the former a few minutes ago.

This was technically a mistake on my part, but IMHO understandable as names normally use upper case and it's confusing and error-prone to have two different capitalisations of the same name redirect to different places. Not really your fault or my fault, rather that it would have been better if there had only been one redirect in the first place!

All the best, Ubcule (talk) 14:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Ubcule, right, that was flagged by Category:Articles with redirect hatnotes needing review, which I patrol. I try to catch those, but when you process so many, it's easy to miss one. Perhaps the module that populates this category can be enhanced to check for that; I also sometimes look at Inconsistent similar redirects, which presumably would flag this situation too. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
No problem- like I said, not your fault, perhaps slightly mine, and was just explaining why I made a minor mistake. :-) Thanks for keeping an eye on this type of thing. All the best, Ubcule (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

New interface for Special:MovePage[edit]

We seem to have lost the permalinks when moves are performed at WP:RMTR. When you hit the 'move' button a new-looking interface is presented, though the questions are familiar. Perhaps MediaWiki has just been updated? If so there ought to be an announcement somewhere. There is no recent change in RMAssist. And the MovePage command is populating the old and new title fields correctly, just not the reason field. That's where the permalink would normally be entered. EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

It's in the "latest tech news":
  • The page move tool has been switched over to the new standard look for forms. [3]
Jenks24 has already filed a report: "you lose whatever you've previously written in the "reason" field. This didn't use to happen."
Sigh. Can these guys change anything without breaking stuff? I see the two-notifications is back, and the "Your messages" notification still says I have one unread message, even though I've obviously already read your message. They should back off this breaking change until they address this problem. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
If you can add to my report there, please do. I'm not as tech-savvy as you, so you might be able to better explain what broke (and perhaps why?). I largely agree with your other comments here as well, though I've tried to be less openly critical on places like VPT as of late because the whole developer system is so opaque – I never know if the person(s) I'm criticising is some poor volunteer doing their best with limited resources, a peon in the WMF's ever-expanding bureaucracy, or the head tech honcho. It's so hard to know who comments or complaints should be addressed to and where.
On a related note, I've tried to get somewhat involved with phabricator lately and have no idea what I'm doing. Check out this simple request (or I thought it was simple) that I made over a month ago. I have no idea if there is some sort of system for someone to ever get around to it, and if there is a system I have no idea where my request is in the queue. I'm beginning to think I should have just made the hack here on en as I'd first thought and bugger the other projects. Jenks24 (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I'll try to take a closer look at that later. I never did completely figure out bugzilla, and haven't used phabricator much yet either. Just looked at the new "move form". So, it seems to be just a cosmetic change? Where's the improved functionality? Why are they wasting time on something that's not broken? I don't really see the point. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Wbm1058 and Jenks24. I'm glad Jenks added a note to the Phabricator report. It's possible there is more that is broken. A person could take the expansion of the RMAssist template, click it, and show that a move request form opens up with the reason information missing. I almost had a working test case and could complete it if it is likely to be helpful. In terms of who to talk to, the author of this Gerrit about MovePage: is User:Matma Rex, who we had discussions with in early 2014. Someone could probably write to him directly, since he gives his email on his user page. EdJohnston (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I see, the guy who gave us permalinks to diffs, that is a very useful feature which I use all the time. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
@EdJohnston, Wbm1058, and Jenks24: Sorry folks, I indeed broke that with this patch, and I've only noticed the comments on the original task today. It's now being handled at phab:T113718, we'll try to get the fix deployed today (if possible; it's Friday and Friday deployments are generally frowned upon) or on Monday. Please watch that task for updates. (It also appeared on VPT, not sure if you've seen: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#File_renaming.) Matma Rex talk 12:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Early Morning (A-ha song)[edit]

Hello, Wbm1058,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Early Morning (A-ha song) should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Early Morning (A-ha song) .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Followup question[edit]

Hi Wbm, just thought I'd pop by with a quick post-RfA question to you. As you raised the "96 ANI" concern, I had two questions:

  1. The first question is if your views could have (in theory, at least) changed at all for the better if I had explained what underlaid each (or some)? I didn't think it wise to respond to comments in general unless a specific question to me was posted at the questions section, but I am now wondering if I should have said more. Would it have made a difference to you? In theory, could there have been a response that would have moved you into the "support" column?
  2. My second question is if you would be interested in deconstucting a sample ANI incident to see what can be learned all around. I'm picking one where I did a revert with a "slightly uncivil edit summary" (others' words), and the reverted editor became very upset at me. I'm picking this one over some of the others because it doesn't involve any blocked sockpuppets or other people with whom I have "history", and because this is a good example of the "tone" issue that some people raised with me. (and because I did apologize for the edit summary) [4]. My reversion that gave rise to the ANI was this one).

Thanks for your time, and no worries if you are too busy with your new mop - far more important things out there (and by the way, if you wanted to move prep sets into the DYK queue, that's usually a job that desperately needs more hands on deck!). But I am hoping to run again in 6 months or so and I am seeking feedback. Montanabw(talk) 19:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Montanabw! I can't say that there isn't anything you could have said during your RfA that would have turned me around, but really I think that's not worth spending too much time on, and there may have been as much risk that you might have said something to make it worse. So, quickly moving on to question #2, you've picked a topic that I both find to be interesting and know nothing about. I'd like to get at least a bit up to speed on the content issues, which I expect will help in understanding any behavioral issues. I see that Disney made a movie Miracle of the White Stallions about these horses, which I've already reserved from my local library. I suppose you're probably familiar with it – seems like a lesser-known cousin of The Sound of Music. And, just in case they played a little loose with the facts, I see my library also has a copy of the Nature Season Thirty-One episode, "Legendary White Stallions" (May 1, 2013). After I watch those, I'll get back to you. Cheers, Wbm1058 (talk) 03:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. The "Nature" episode is wonderful - you'll enjoy it. And Disney didn't do too bad a job on the Patton story; I've read many of Alois Podhajsky's books, it was a fascinating period in the history of the school. Keep in mind that the article itself is currently GA-class.  ;-) Montanabw(talk) 03:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Montanabw: I've watched both DVDs now, so I have a basic understanding of the topic. The diff was an edit to the country parameter for {{Infobox horse breed}}. I note the template documentation simply shows a simple example of [[England]], where there is a single, clear-cut country of origin. However Template talk:Infobox horse breed has "extended documentation" (it's unclear why this been relegated to the talk page):

  • country: Country or countries of origin, preferably at time of origin to avoid squabbling over current political boundaries.

The text for this parameter is already long, taking up six lines in the infobox in my browser: Developed by the House of Habsburg from Arab, Barb, Spanish and Neapolitan stock. Today associated with nations of Austria, Hungary, Slovenia and Croatia. The second sentence "Today associated with nations of Austria, Hungary, Slovenia and Croatia." Doesn't address the countries of origin, but rather the countries where these horses are bred today, so perhaps could be removed from the infobox. "Developed by the House of Habsburg..." doesn't specifically name a country either. I see that they trace back to other breeds in Spain and North Africa, but assume that what is intended is the country or countries where the "foundation horses" were mated to originate the Lipizzans. My reading of the article finds two locations for the mating of the founders: in 1562, the Habsburg Emperor Maximillian II brought the Spanish Andalusian horse to Austria and founded the court stud at Kladrub. In 1580, his brother, Archduke Charles II, established a similar stud at Lipizza (now Lipica), located in modern-day Slovenia, from which the breed obtained its name. So the modern-day countries are Czech Republic and Slovenia (the original "farm teams" for the major league show at Vienna, whose "farm" is now at Graz, Austria, as seen on the Nature program). To find the country at origin, I look to Maximilian II, Holy Roman Emperor to see what county he ruled in 1562. Seems he ruled several, but they all appear to be internal divisions of the Holy Roman Empire, which he ruled by 1564. So, it seems that the best answer for "Country of origin, at time of origin to avoid squabbling over current political boundaries" is "Holy Roman Empire". Of course, the average reader will say, "huh?" and click on that to see the map showing its territorial boundaries. File:HRR.gif shows how the Empire's boundaries changed over time. Except that the House of Habsburg also ruled the Habsburg Monarchy, which was a composite state composed of territories within and outside the Holy Roman Empire, united only in the person of the monarch. So, Habsburg Empirefinal answer ;) I can see how consensus would settle on what's there now, though.

Now regarding the behavioral issues, yes, I agree the revert had a "slightly uncivil edit summary". Especially given Slovenian nationalism is a legitimate and potentially controversial topic. I really see no basis for bringing that into the discussion at all. Seems like it was a good-faith edit to me, especially as that place is "from which the breed obtained its name". It's understandable that an editor not closely reading the article could unintentionally overlook Kladrub. Really what you should do is put a link in your edit summary to the talk page discussion which settled on the current text as the consensus for the best description of "country of origin", and ask the editor to read it and then respond with arguments as to why the consensus should be changed, if they wish. If there was no prior talk page discussion, then you should start one, like the discussion I just started above, giving the rationale for what the infobox should say about "country of origin". Wbm1058 (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow! Great research, and I wish everyone would do stuff like this! So, I think you have some good points for an initial explanation. But how long does one stay patient until you go, "same old shit, here we go again?" (LOL). For example, the Slovenian problem popped up in [ December 2008], 2009 (three threads, same editor as 2008, December 2013 (same editor as 2008, [5] Feb 2015 (three threads)] in July 2015, last month, and two days ago. Do we need to create a FAQ the way they did at Talk:Barak Obama? Or what? At what point does one just throw up their hands and say, "have at it, POV-pushers." ;-) Montanabw(talk) 00:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Montanabw. Regarding one of your edits which you linked, "We can fix the link if that's a problem. It was everything else that led to the revert.", generally I don't like to see editors making full reversions of edits when only part of the edit is a problem. You should just revert the portion of the edit you object to, and let the rest of their edit stand. I know it takes more of your time to go to the effort to do that, but it helps establish a better rapport with the other editor. Or, better than a straight revert is to change it to something which might be agreeable to both. So, yes, I see that the current long-winded text for "country of origin" is problematic, because editors keep trying to change it from time to time. But if these were "POV", agenda-driven editors, wouldn't they also be trying to remove "in 1562, the Habsburg Emperor Maximillian II brought the Spanish Andalusian horse to Austria and founded the court stud at Kladrub" because that doesn't agree with their agenda? How about responding to this IP's single edit with |country= [[Habsburg Empire]] as I just suggested, copy my rationale to Talk:Lipizzan, and see if that sticks? "Developed by the House of Habsburg from Arab, Barb, Spanish and Neapolitan stock. Today associated with nations of Austria, Hungary, Slovenia and Croatia." can be integrated into the article body somehow, if it doesn't already say that. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Let me chew on all that. You have some good ideas. BTW, why are we merging templates and documentation now, when they split them up originally? (I know squat about that techie stuff, just curious). Montanabw(talk) 23:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I think at one time, the Template:Infobox horse breed page might have included both the actual template code and the template documentation. Possibly, someone wishing to split the documentation from the code might have chosen to use the talk page for the documentation. But these days, the general practice is to use the WP:subpage Template:Infobox horse breed/doc for the documentation, which is WP:transcluded to the Template:Infobox horse breed page when you look at it. Wbm1058 (talk) 00:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Fish sandwich listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fish sandwich. Since you had some involvement with the Fish sandwich redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Just heard about...[edit]

THIS! and since you're one of my favorite editors on WP, I wanted to congratulate you. The "mop" couldn't be trusted to anyone better! Joys! and Best of Everything to You and Yours! – Painius  08:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Paine! I just archived everything at User talk:Wbm1058/RFA. I figured a month was long enough to leave it up, and try to keep this page under 100,000 bytes. I really appreciate all the support and congrats I got. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Impressive congrats page! Yours was the kind of RfA I would have expected had I chosen to become an admin back in early '13. An RfC on a grand, 3-part scale was going on back then, so I backed off. I may as well try again, because the RfA will probably always be a central theme of controversy. I may not get it, but I'm glad you did! Paine Ellsworth (talk-contribs)  13:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Zala (disambiguation) / Zala / Zala County[edit]

A couple weeks ago, you moved Zala (disambiguation) to Zala. Was this move over a redirect, and did that redirect point to Zala County at some point before being changed to Zala (disambiguation)? It appears that a Tobias Conradi sock (Domlesch) made changes to a bunch of articles to change a link from Zala to Zala County, and now that The Blade of the Northern Lights has reverted those edits, there are over 250 ambiguous links to Zala.

If Zala used to point to Zala County (I can't see the deleted edits), can the disambiguation page be put back at Zala (disambiguation) and the redirect restored (to point to Zala County) to restore the status quo ante (and maybe an RFD should be started to discuss that redirect)? Note that I have no issue disambiguating the Zala links if things stay as they are, but I would basically be reverting from Blade's version to a sock's version, and I don't feel comfortable doing that. (pinging @SpacemanSpiff and Bbb23 as they have dealt with Tobias in the past) -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 09:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

This has been a nightmare of a clean up now because of his recent change in MO. He used one account to request the move and another to actually perform it, so reverts aren't working as they ought to unlike over the past eight years! But to the original question, Zala was pointing to Zala County. In true Tobias style though, the common and official name of the place is Zala and doesn't have county on it. EB lists it as Zala. —SpacemanSpiff 12:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi guys. Yes, on 18 February 2008 Timur lenk moved Zala to Zala County: "Add administrative division category (as Oblast in Ukraine; Voivodeship in Poland; Region in Slovakia; County in Croatia and Romania etc.)" All of the Category:Counties of Hungary article titles end with "County", so this is consistent. Thus #REDIRECT [[Zala County]] is the first of three deleted edits, and that stood until Domlesch changed it to #REDIRECT [[Zala (disambiguation)]] at 18:46, 16 September 2015. The third deleted edit was {{db-move|[[Zala (disambiguation)]]|standard for dab pages is to reside at the base name}} at 21:01, 16 September 2015 by, who apparently has been connected to Domlesch (see User talk:Bbb23#Tobias). It takes some work to follow the audit trail for that. Then at 2:21, 23 September 2015, I moved page Zala (disambiguation) to Zala per WP:MALPLACED. It's curious that the {{db-move}} apparently sat there for a full week. I suppose symptomatic of our shortage of active admins. As I recall, I was responding to this 08:31, 21 September 2015 RussBot notification (at the time there were just eleven incoming links, and my edit history shows that I disambiguated them using popups). I see how EB handles this. I'd like to take a closer look at Wikipedia's handling of the other counties of Hungary, and will follow up here shortly. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

19 Counties of Hungary:

  1. Bács-Kiskun is unambiguous
  2. Baranya is a dab
  3. The town Békés is the primary topic, not Békés County (interestingly, EB doesn't have an article about this "major town"
  4. Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén is unambiguous
  5. The town Csongrád is the primary topic, not Csongrád County (again, EB doesn't have an article about this "major city"
  6. Fejér County is the primary topic, but Fejér (disambiguation) only has two other options: Fejér County (former) and Fejér (surname) – there's no town by that name
  7. Győr-Moson-Sopron is unambiguous
  8. Hajdú-Bihar is unambiguous
  9. The small city Heves is the primary topic, not Heves County
  10. Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok County is the primary topic, it's a WP:TWODAB with Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok County (former) the secondary topic
  11. Komárom-Esztergom is unambiguous
  12. The village Nógrád is the primary topic, not Nógrád County
  13. Pest is a dab
  14. Somogy is a dab, though Somogy County (former) seems to be the only other topic
  15. Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg is unambiguous
  16. Tolna is a dab
  17. Vas County is the primary topic; Vas (disambiguation) has a large number of items, though most are for the three-letter acronym "VAS"
  18. The city Veszprém is the primary topic, not Veszprém County
  19. So now there are about 230 remaining links to Zala. Given the above, and that there is a Zala (village), I'm inclined to leave this as is (forcing disambiguation), with no clear primary topic. The only example supporting the county as primary is Vas (and that's dubious in my mind) – better to play it safe here and not make anything primary.

Most links seem to be stubs such as:

It shouldn't take long to use WP:AWB to change these to [[Zala County]]. I think County should be upper case here as it's a proper name. I can work on this. – Wbm1058 (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I was going to get to this, but see that others have taken care of it now, for which I'm thankful, as I've been juggling several balls recently. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


Theo abruptly stopped editing in June 2014 and has only made 5 or 6 sporadic edits since. I sent him an email a couple of months ago but did not get a reply. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I don't know the details of his life, but he reminds me of the editor who did great work to support the American National Register of Historic Places articles. A PhD student who took a long Wikibreak. I filled in in his absence (see #A barnstar for you! above), and then shortly after that he returned from his long break to do more exemplary work. So, since there is a general consensus in support of his application, what I think is appropriate here is to shut down current and future use of it (deprecate it) since that's broken, while continuing to support the historic usage that's still functional, in such a way that he can resurrect and fix his application if and when he returns. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)