Email this user

User talk:wbm1058

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

Contents

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]

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

Cross-namespace redirects[edit]

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)
  • Just a note that Category:Redirects to user namespace is significantly underpopulated. I was working off the list at User:Largoplazo/WP Redirects to further populate it, and worked my way through the A's. It's on my patrol list, so I may get to it eventually. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
    I finally used AWB to populate Category:Redirects to user namespace; it now has over 900 members. My technique was to Make list from source Special page: All Redirects in namespace Wikipedia: – the category hasn't yet been fully populated for other namespaces. I think all of the cross-namespace redirect categories can and should eventually be populated by bots... AWB may be able to do that with a sufficiently sophisticated configuration. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
    See HERE for the regex find & replace used for this. I manually monitored this and had to skip some that were already rcat templated; also may have missed some. wbm1058 (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
    Or the database query method used to generate User:Largoplazo/WP Redirects may be a more efficient method than my AWB special page walk-through. I need to figure out how to do that myself. @Paine Ellsworth: FYI. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the ping, Wbm1058! That's pretty cool stuff you're doing – and waay outside my full comprehension. Please keep up the great work!  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  15:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

VisualEditor[edit]

Numbers[edit]

Hi Wbm1058,

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

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

Invitation[edit]

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.

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

Setting magic words[edit]

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

Duplicate template parameters[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)
To do: possible merge of {{Non-free use rationale}} and {{Non-free use rationale 2}}
Non-free media information and use rationale for Test article
Description

{{{Description}}}

Source

Myself

Article

Test article

Portion used

{{{Portion}}}

Low resolution?

{{{Low resolution}}}

Purpose of use

Demo

Replaceable?

{{{Replaceability}}}

Fair useFair use of copyrighted material in the context of Test article//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wbm1058
Media data and Non-free use rationale
Description
Author or
copyright owner
Source (WP:NFCC#4) Myself
Use in article (WP:NFCC#7) Test article
Purpose of use in article (WP:NFCC#8)
Not replaceable with
free media because
(WP:NFCC#1)
Minimal use (WP:NFCC#3)
Respect for
commercial opportunities
(WP:NFCC#2)
Fair useFair use of copyrighted material in the context of Test article//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wbm1058

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

Generate automatic summary /* blah */ when I manually add a section heading when editing[edit]

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

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)

Accuracy[edit]

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

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

Whisperback[edit]

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

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

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)

Timeline of DOS operating systems[edit]

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

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

Race Against the Machine[edit]

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

A main thesis of the book is that accelerating technology improvements will reduce employment, and over time this will effect more higher-skilled occupations. We see this already with jobs coming back to the US from China... because they are replacing people with bots. Yes, a few more jobs for Americans who are skilled at bot development, operations and maintenance. But way fewer jobs than were displaced in China. Of course, at Wikipedia there are relatively few editors that work for money. We already have very intelligent bots such as ClueBot NG that help tremendously with tasks such as vandalism reversion. That one has over 4 million edits now! Bots also help with spelling corrections. There could be further enhancements to these tasks that could reduce the need for new page patrollers and spelling correctors. Time scale is dependent on volunteer contributions, or possible funding by the Wikimedia Foundation. wbm1058 (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. The future seems to be coming at us pretty fast. I try to stay informed-but-neutral. - Dank (push to talk) 17:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Birth dates in biographies and California Law AB-1687[edit]

Here's an interesting news item: California Enacts Law Requiring IMDb to Remove Actor Ages on Request

I participated in an interesting conversation about this here. I'd be interested in hearing from others who are interested in this. What do you think? wbm1058 (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of actors and birth dates... Can we remove the birth date from Vanessa Ferlito's page or lock it? Plenty of public sources cite 1977 yet someone (probably her PR) keeps reverting it back to 1980. IMDB doesn't fall in line. Suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.208.185 (talk) 03:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Right, thanks. I don't like to see stuff I archived as resolved keep coming back as an issue. I see the TV Guide bio doesn't have a birth date anymore, while in my archive I reported that it did. I think pending changes protection is in order, as relying on watchlisting isn't giving us timely reversions. wbm1058 (talk) 02:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Templates for deletion for deletion[edit]

Implement multiple parameters to prefix: operator on fulltext searches[edit]

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

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

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

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 61 § is there a way to search several sections with one search? – June 10–17, 2009
And User talk:Rainman § modification to search several Wikipedian sections at one time – June 15–17, 2009
And User talk:Stmrlbs/Archive/001 § multiple prefixes – June 15–17, 2009
June 17, 2009 Help:Searching documentation update, alas documentation of this multiple-prefixes-separated-by-pipes feature was removed on October 11, 2009 when this was rewritten, to try to improve usability
"To search multiple sections of Wikipedia with different prefixes, enter the different prefixes with a pipe delimiter."
"This should be especially useful for archive searching in concert with inputbox or searchbox."
@Cpiral: so clearly prefix did at least briefly take pipes. Unfortunately, the volunteer developer of that, Rainman, isn't active any more either, and I haven't been able to locate his code changes that implemented that feature. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the history lesson. Interesting. Maybe useful.
Anyway, for now we have wp:deletion process#Search all deletion discussions. Hope that helps. — Cpiral§Cpiral 07:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

None of those redirects should go to Sense[edit]

None of those redirects should go to Sense -- which is a problematic article, and I have already tagged for merging. As a user I got very confused by the bad Sense article and it took me a long time to find the information I was looking for, which is in Sensory system. So when you claim we need to be consistent, we should be consistent forward in the good direction, not backward in the bad direction. LaurentianShield (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

History merging[edit]

Category:Possible cut-and-paste moves[edit]

I saw your comment at category talk:Possible cut-and-paste moves. That's really interesting. So, Mikaey had himswlf requested the category to emptied. What's more, the task is even listed as a potential ine for AarghBot at its user page. So, why are u wasting ur time decatting pages manually? Why don't u nominate it for deletion. As u must be aware, Cydebot automatically empties all categories upon a CFD discussion closing with consensus to delete. Here, it's almost a G7 case - I don't see why anyone would object to the cat being deleted. Most of the entries are false positives and the ones wbich aren't are alrady listed at WP:WPHM. 103.6.159.72 (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Five months after I made those comments, it was nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 July 12#Category:Possible cut-and-paste moves. I missed that discussion, which happened when I went on my summer break. Sigh, none of those voting keep are helping to clear it. I did an edit summary search and found that when I was last working this backlog on October 30, 2015 I got as far alphabetically as Rakim & Ken-Y (Ke) and when I resumed on January 19, 2017 the first one I did was Kadar Khan (Kh) so substantially nobody else has been working this in a meaningful way. I've been trying to find a way to more efficiently clear this. Cats for discussion is an area that I'm not very active in. wbm1058 (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I see you made a somewhat related bot request, Wikipedia:Bot requests#Bot for category history merges. I've thought about the possibility of admin-bots helping out with hist-merges in article-space, and a bot doing hist-merges in category-space probably wouldn't be all that different. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Brfa[edit]

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Merge bot 2

For an adminbot that's good to perform hundreds of thousands of admin actions, your BRFA, I apologise, is quite lacklustre. (I just fixed a big typo) I would suggest that you expand the function overview to completely describe everything the bot's gonna do. You see, you have to convince the BAG that you are responsible and capable of running a bot with advanced permissions. 103.6.159.74 (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I am sure that Od Mishehu wanted you to revdelete cydebot's edit summary only when it contains the name of a now-vanished user. If the bot can't recognize such users or if it's too much trouble to implement, I'd suggest leaving out that part altogether. I personally don't see the need for doing that at all, since the vanished user's original username can anyway be known by looking at their rename log or just by reading the signatures on their talk page. In any case, revdeleting all of Cydebot's edit summaries makes no sense. 103.6.159.74 (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing my little mistake. I guess I was a little tired when I wrote that up. I trust that whichever BAG member reviews this will also read the longer linked bot-request page discussion, and ask me any questions they have. I'll just wait to see what questions they have, and then answer them. Some thought my self-nomination for RFA was lacklustre too, but I still managed to pass that. Regarding the revdeletes, I believe the thinking there is that we want to hide them preemptively in case anyone wants to vanish in the future. If not, then I'll need a list of usernames to check for, to determine which ones to hide. I think the idea is to make it harder to find vanished users. Also the list in the edit summary isn't necessary because all of the users named in it would now be in the merged edit history. But I'm ambivalent about the need to hide the edit summaries. You can bring that up on the bot requests or BRFA page to see whether there is consensus for hiding or not hiding. Hundreds of thousands, I guess you're right: 87,000 × 4 = 348,000. I'm sure the BAG will ask for shorter trial runs before they let me unleash it at full-throttle. wbm1058 (talk) 15:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

fixed another typo. 103.6.159.68 (talk) 06:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Trial[edit]

Your bot task has been approved for an extended trial. See here for details. Please take special note of the extended pause due to the lack of bot flag during the trial. Let me know if you have any questions, and thank you for your work. ~ Rob13Talk 03:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Cats about 1921-1922 in Turkey[edit]

I see you have directed cat:1921-1922 establishments in Turkey to Cat:1921-1922 establishments in the Ottoman Empire. Well that requires some consideration. After 23 April 1920 the Ottoman Empire and Turkey were different states with different constitutions and different governments. It is true that the Republic was proclainmed in 1923, but even before the proclamation of the Republic, Turkey was a soverign state independent of the Ottoman Empire. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

These automated administrative actions were performed as part of the bot trial authorized in the section above. All I did was to history-merge categories which had previously been renamed. wbm1058 (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  1. Category:1920 disestablishments in the Ottoman Empire <-- Category:1920 disestablishments in Turkey 2015-02-26T22:11:32Z <-- 2015-02-26T22:11:37Z (5)
  2. Category:1915 disestablishments in the Ottoman Empire <-- Category:1915 disestablishments in Turkey 2015-02-26T22:11:18Z <-- 2015-02-26T22:11:27Z (9)
  3. Category:1914 disestablishments in the Ottoman Empire <-- Category:1914 disestablishments in Turkey 2015-02-26T22:11:08Z <-- 2015-02-26T22:11:13Z (5)
  4. Category:1913 disestablishments in the Ottoman Empire <-- Category:1913 disestablishments in Turkey 2015-02-26T22:10:57Z <-- 2015-02-26T22:11:03Z (6)
  5. Category:1912 disestablishments in the Ottoman Empire <-- Category:1912 disestablishments in Turkey 2015-02-26T22:10:46Z <-- 2015-02-26T22:10:52Z (6)
  6. Category:1909 disestablishments in the Ottoman Empire <-- Category:1909 disestablishments in Turkey 2015-02-26T22:10:35Z <-- 2015-02-26T22:10:41Z (6)
  7. Category:1922 establishments in the Ottoman Empire <-- Category:1922 establishments in Turkey 2015-02-26T22:10:15Z <-- 2015-02-26T22:10:31Z (16)
  8. Category:1921 establishments in the Ottoman Empire <-- Category:1921 establishments in Turkey 2015-02-26T22:09:56Z <-- 2015-02-26T22:10:10Z (14)
  9. Category:1920 establishments in the Ottoman Empire <-- Category:1920 establishments in Turkey 2015-02-26T22:09:24Z <-- 2015-02-26T22:09:51Z (27)
  10. Category:1919 establishments in the Ottoman Empire <-- Category:1919 establishments in Turkey 2015-02-26T22:09:13Z <-- 2015-02-26T22:09:19Z (6)

Bot task approved[edit]

Your recent bot task has been Approved. Please see detailed comments at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Merge bot 2. Your bot should receive the sysop flag shortly. ~ Rob13Talk 15:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Flagging has been complete. Please note, your bot account now qualifies for WP:2FA which I strongly recommend. You can use BotPasswords or OAUTH authentication to limit your bot's administrative permissions to the ones needed for the task. Once this task is completed, the +sysop flag should no longer be required and you can notify WP:BN to remove it. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 15:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Barnstar - technical works.svg The Technical Barnstar
For operating Merge bot._

Marvellous Spider-Man 15:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Those missing templates[edit]

Hi Wbm1058

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

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

@BrownHairedGirl: Right, this was my clunky attempt to solve a problem. See Template talk:ISO 639 name#Return empty string for codes not on the list. Sorry about cluttering up WantedCategories; that was a side-effect that I didn't think of. These categories are not actually supposed to be created, but rather templates with the same name. The idea was to avoid degrading the reader experience by showing redlink-templates, but provide an easier way for patrolling editors to find the problem. I guess I should revert that, but it would be nice to replace it with a better solution, if we can come up with one. wbm1058 (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, my post was a bit unclear. What I meant was: any guidance on how to create the templates? I'd be happy to help if I knew how.
This looks fine as a way of getting a list of needed templates. But now that Special:WantedCategories has created the list, it would be helpful if the template could stop generating these categories, prferably before the next update (which is likely on 11 April or 12 April).
I have gotten a it of practice at quickly grabbing a categ list from the oddly-formatted Special:WantedCategories, so I made a list of the ISO 639 categs, at User:Wbm1058/ISO 639 categs. I hope that helps; if it's a nuisance, pls delete it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl, this is kind of like the blind leading the blind to repair issues caused by other blind. There is Category:Articles containing unknown ISO 639 language template, which was created by Jonesey95. Then there is also Category:Lang-x templates with other than ISO 639. Some editors have used these "language" templates for dialects of languages that do not have ISO 639 codes, thus the attempts of templates to look up ISO 639 codes fail with errors implying an ISO 639 template needs to be created. Well, there is none to be created. My solution for cases like that is edits like THIS and THIS. We need to sort these dialect "languages" out from the real languages that actually have ISO 639 codes where a template really does need to be created. I'm not an expert in any of this, and got involved with it when the new Category:Pages with template loops was created, and that snagged the poor design of these "language" templates. See also Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 154#Category:Pages with template loops for background on what led me into this rabbit-hole. Template:Language with name and Template:Lang were never intended to be used for dialects, but how can we expect editors other than the ones who designed these templates to know that? – wbm1058 (talk) 12:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
What an almighty mess. My immediate question is to ask what purpose this whole system serves, and whether any of this necessary? I know little about the topic, so I make no attempt to try answering that pair of questions ... but I do think that when something gets so complex, it's time to re-evaluate the cost-benefit ratios.
I'm afraid that I have neither the skills to get that deep into these templates nor the inclination to do so, so I think i'd better withdraw my offer to help. Sorry!
In the meantime, please could you revert the edit which populated the categs? It does seem to have served its purpose, and the ongoing slog of clearing the 100–200 daily additions to Special:WantedCategories is impeded by these categs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
BrownHairedGirl, you are wise to move on to somewhere that makes more sense. The whole lang template system is a bit of a mess and in need of a rethink. In the meantime, I am slowly (five weeks so far) clearing out the errors and creating needed templates based on Category:Articles containing unknown ISO 639 language template. I should be done in a couple of weeks.
In answer to your "what purpose this whole system serves", tagging text with {{lang}} can affect how the enclosed text is rendered. It also adds a tracking category, which may be useful to some editors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure edits like this are the optimal solution – whether something is a language or a dialect is irrelevant, we want the text string to be formatted properly and bypassing {{Language with name}} doesn't help with that. I've had a look at User:Wbm1058/ISO 639 categs and most of these appear to either contain typos (in which case they need to be fixed in the specific pages that use the lang template), or to be of the type aaa-Bbb, which is the format for the language (aaa) + script(Yyyy) combination. Pinging Erutuon whom I've seen working on this. – Uanfala (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I am working on Category:Articles containing unknown ISO 639 language template and expect to have it mostly cleared out in a few days. When I started a month ago, there were something like 2,000 pages in the category. It's down to 332 right now. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I would replace all the templates with modules. The module could check to see if the code string is valid character-wise – either xyz or xyz-Abcd – using regular expressions. It could also check if the script and language codes are correct using the MediaWiki language library or a data module that lists language codes. And it could create linked language names by adding the articles as an entry in the data module. Wiktionary does all this language-related stuff using modules (see wikt:Module:languages, wikt:Module:scripts, wikt:Module:script utilities). I've begun such a module at Module:Language (see also Module:Language/scripts/data), though it does not currently do everything mentioned here. — Eru·tuon 18:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Sounds great to me. I see that you have already seen this discussion from six months ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
If you need any help, you can ask for it at Wikipedia:Lua/To do. While I've self-taught myself enough PHP to support two bots and even write one from scratch, I've yet to make time to study Lua, so I can only do so much with that. wbm1058 (talk) 20:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Task to switch between new and old interface of "search for contributions" tool rejected[edit]

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

George, I wouldn't know how to write a script to change the interface, and I'm not keen on switching between two less-than-ideal interfaces. There should only need be one, fully-functional interface that's adequate for efficiently handling all use cases. What we have now is not such an interface, and we should focus on getting that one improved. I'm frustrated with the current means of interacting with the developers – there is a confusing array of different "phabricators" on this, I'm not keen on the phabricator editing interface, and I don't know whether I should add to an existing phab or start a new one, so I prefer using Village Pump where I can use Wikitext. As I need to use this interface to perform specific tasks, I may report issues I have with the current interface that make it more difficult to get the job done. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Hmm... How about Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab), where we can discuss the user contributions interface? --George Ho (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Maybe. But, per "defines a solution rather than a problem" I don't know if solutions developed in the idea lab would be welcomed by the developers. I'm not happy with the "handcuffs" placed on us with regard to modes of interaction with developers. Maybe if I just present problems to WP:VPT, and let them either tell me how to achieve my desired result, or make changes to the interface that allow me to achieve my desired result. wbm1058 (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
No offense, but IMO I don't think WP:VPT is a place for general feedback on any software or something. VPT is used for technical difficulties, bugs, glitches, and other tech issues that need immediate attention (not sure whether I phrased it correctly). One complaint describing none of these, and they'll either advise you to write a personal script/gadget or write one for you as they did before. But you're welcome to choose any appropriate venue. I still think the "idea lab" is best bet. --George Ho (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
At the top of WP:VPT there is a notice "Bug reports and feature requests should be made in Phabricator" but that's just redirecting us back to an interface I find less than ideal. I don't understand why they have such an aversion to Wikitext. I think that's easiest as all active editors are intimately familiar with it. Almost everything the developers in general try to pawn off as "easier" to use, I find to be more of a pain. But venue should be secondary to getting the issues raised, so if you want to start an idea lab thread, feel free. wbm1058 (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
On second thought, I just realized that you can go to meta:Tech and then post your concerns there. The developers changed the interface all over the wikis. --George Ho (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I see, meta:Tech#"Search for contributions" date range. So, let's let the latest bug fix settle in before we try using it again. That page seems like a good place for reporting issues with the Special:Contributions interface, as I hate to go to the trouble to submit a new bug report, only to find that one's already been submitted. wbm1058 (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Old rfd on talk pages[edit]

Hi and thank you for your help at RfD, it's appreciated! Just a note though, that after a discussion is closed, nowadays it's usually expected from the closer to place the {{Old rfd}} note on the talk page (of course, unless the redirect was deleted). If you use the XFDcloser script, it will do that for you. – Uanfala 12:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't aware that there was a script for that! wbm1058 (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Its capabilities were relatively recently extended to RfD. It's quite useful and saves a lot of work, especially if there are several redirects and the outcome is the same for all of them. – Uanfala 13:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Marriage template errors[edit]

I took 5 articles out of the error category yesterday. DrKay (talk) 06:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@DrKay: I see, and you've put notes on the editor's talk pages as well. Thanks for letting me know. That template is something of a mess; I'm working on cleaning it up. Will get back to you about the died/widowed thing. wbm1058 (talk) 13:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I've been slow to follow up on this. Just noticed Template talk:Marriage#Death and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Template talk:Marriage#Death. I'll take a look. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Template:Marriage[edit]

Could you add

-->(<!--

to this template, right before this line:

(Start parenthesis carrying marriage data)

It looks like you deleted it by mistake and I'm not able to edit it myself. Thanks. Bmf 051 (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Sure. I just noticed that myself, and was looking at it just as you dropped me this notice. Thanks! wbm1058 (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

International trucks[edit]

Why is it so hard?[edit]

These trucks are named "International". That is a fact. This is some kind of culture thing. These trucks are only called "Harvester" inside Wikipedia. A name has been made up for ease in linking Wikipedia articles.

This is such a simple thing and it has been made so complex. People go out of their way to make up complications. Maybe because they hate me. Nobody will just say "oops, got that wrong, better fix it". Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 02:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

International trucks - requested moves[edit]

About the requested moves discussion. As one of the simpler editors here I'm concerned this discussion seems to have cunningly escaped closing and I don't understand why. Am I allowed to bring it to the attention of an / any admin? If this discussion is closed with no change can the same discussion, more or less immediately, be re-commenced with this time more disciplined input from the supporters of the move? Is a renewed request barred for some long time? Thanks and regards, Eddaido (talk) 01:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

The strongest case can be made for moving International Harvester S-Series, the last complete product line designed within the existence of International Harvester, which has a lengthy production history under Navistar. I'd enter a single request to move just that, for the best chance of success, then take it from there as far as consensus allows. But let's wait to cross that bridge before we have to. wbm1058 (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
What is the weakness of the many sources that Eddiao and I have shown? We don't seem to get anyone to consider them. (I probably have confused things too much). You know I think the circle is just to small, too much prejudice. Both Eddiado and I have begged for outside, objective POVs, no luck. We were lucky to get you, even though I don't always agree with you. Without some more "new eyes", just by default this may stay stagnant. (Personal note: is it acceptable for me to update a collapsed source list to be clearer?) Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 13:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@Eddaido and Sammy D III: See Talk:International Harvester S-Series § Requested move 18 November 2017. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Old discussions[edit]

I wonder if you might be able to help me find something. Around 2010 or soon after there was a discussion of the appropriate name for International trucks (then I think without the Harvester). The argument for including Harvester was very narrowly carried on the grounds that it avoided confusion with any truck crossing the Canadian or Mexican or other border. I was truly startled at the time but still being a new kid on the block I did nothing - anyway I think the discussion was over when I found it.

Since 2008 there has been a Commons:category:International trucks and there has never been any confusion at all so far as I am aware (and I go around Commons tidying things up which is why I first raised this matter). The same unjustified concern has been raised again at the end of the most recent discussion.

I have made efforts to search through old discussions on Wikimedia and Commons without any luck. Is it possible you might have a better understanding of this environment, better tools and more success? Many thanks, Eddaido (talk) 09:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@Eddaido: sorry, I wasn't able to locate it either. I've added comments addressing that issue at WikiProject Trucks. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk:AR-15 (disambiguation)[edit]

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

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

Thanks for your recent articles on the noticeboard page and the talk page discussions. I am at a bit of a loss on what the correct action should be taken next. The stated points seem to be reasonable arguments, but I feel like this argument is going to keep going in circles. Take a look also at Talk:Colt AR-15. Does it make sense continue pursing AR-15 arguments, seek additional input? I feel like I might have not too much to add here besides another vote for consensus, but any further discussion seems that it will likely further inflame opinions rather than coming to some sort of resolution. Shaded0 (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Shaded0, I'm not sure what your goals are here, i.e. specifically what you would like to accomplish. I added the {{WikiProject content advice}} template at the top of Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms § Guidelines since that advice section co-mingles both style and content advice. My sense is that you are more concerned with content than style, so it might be helpful to spit that section into separate style and content sections, if you want to focus on one but not the other. Looking at Category:WikiProject content advice I see that there are relatively few topic areas where such content-specific advice is given. I think the recent changes to Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms § Criminal use were not well thought out and too-hastily pushed through. I prefer the more longstanding previous version of that advice, and would have opposed this change. I'd like to revert to the former version. I suppose the way to overrule that local consensus would be to appeal to a wider audience with a request for comment. I'm not sure there is a well-trodden path for such appeals; it's something I'm not that familiar with as I don't often engage in high-level content debates. In any event, the Bushmaster XM-15 article still has Notoriety, Sandy Hook, and Legality sections, so if this advice-change was an attempt to remove all that in favor of nothing more than "see also" links, the advice change hasn't stuck in that article. Given that, I'm not sure how much time it's worth to pursue this. wbm1058 (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

HEADS UP![edit]

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the heads up. I had not seen that blog. I've heard of LB but am not familiar with the details of her block. She says she's a Cronkite School alumna, and I can believe that as it shows in the quality of her blog. I welcome good criticism, and she makes some good points. No comment on the merits of her arbitration case, but, in general it's a shame when we lose editors like this for whatever reason.
Here's the 36 edits I made on November 7 related to this. It's not immediately apparent from that how I became involved in this. I patrol Category:Articles with redirect hatnotes needing review. This 6 November 2017 edit which changed the target of AR-15 caused Colt AR-15 to land in that category by rendering its hatnote {{Redirect|AR-15}} untruthful. When I work that category, I determine how to fix it; usually that's done with only an edit or two – it's an unusual case where I end up making as many as 36 edits to correct a navigation structure that's so badly munged. LB helps explain how it got that way. This was just the beginning of my involvement in this topic area to date. A couple days later, in respose to #Talk:AR-15 (disambiguation), I made 7 more edits. Then a comment that basically wrapped up an AN/I incident.
All of this participation is time-consuming. I'm not exactly happy with the status quo, there seems a strong case that AR-15 has become a genericized trademark, and that "modern sporting rifle" is an invented term designed to forestall that genericization. So LB shouldn't take my edits as an endorsement of the status quo. I'm keeping this on my back burner. wbm1058 (talk) 02:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Please take note[edit]

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for December 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited (You Want To) Make a Memory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vinyl (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, Fixed. The thanks I get for this edit. On my to-do list is developing a Spell bot to flag these misspellings in real time by monitoring the recent changes. wbm1058 (talk) 14:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Awwww....[edit]

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

Hello wbm[edit]

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

TOC experiments[edit]

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

Another episode list that's broken[edit]

Just an FYI, List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes is now broken as the Simpsons was. I'm not looking forward to fixing this one. --AussieLegend () 04:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: also List of Doctors episodes, List of Kalyeserye episodes and List of The Nature of Things episodes. wbm1058 (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Ohio Wikimedians User Group: May 2018 newsletter[edit]

Ohio Wikimedians User Group logo without text.svg

General Updates

  • Based on our recent discussion, the Ohio Wikimedians User Group has its first resolution in support of Net Neutrality.
    • On a related note, a proposal on the Village Pump has been created about having a banner in support of Net Neutrality displayed for Wikipedia users in the United States. If you have thoughts on this proposal, you may add your comments here.
  • The Art+Feminism campaign took place in March and April, and Ohio saw two Art+Feminism edit-a-thons take place! A Cincinatti edit-a-thon was hosted by LOOK, and a Columbus edit-a-thon was hosted by Wikipedia Connection at the Ohio State University. Great job to all attendees and organizers!
  • Stay tuned for volunteer opportunities for WikiConference North America 2018, which is coming up in October in Columbus, Ohio! Stay up to date on the conference by joining the mailing list, liking the Facebook page, and following the Twitter handle.
  • The 50,000 Challenge is currently 5.74% complete, with the goal of writing 50,000 articles on U.S. topics. If you're interested in writing Ohio-related articles, consider contributing as part of this event and recording your articles under Ohio!

Upcoming and Ongoing Events

OCT
18-21

On behalf of the Ohio Wikimedians User Group, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Orphans[edit]

Hi, these are the discussions here and here that confirm WP:Orphan that orphan tags should only be added if there are no valid incoming mainspace links not including disambig links so the orphan few parameter is in contravention of WP:Orphan and consensus, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Atlantic306. I'm aware of several past discussions on this matter, but you've linked me to two I hadn't read before. The first discussion, from September – November 2011, predates the October 2012‎ creation of |few= and Category:Low linked articles. I also read the followup discussion "Possible new bot?" further down that archive page and the sidebar discussion at Wikipedia talk:Orphan/Archive 1#Isolated articles. Yet further down Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orphanage/Archive 2 I see a proposed change to Template:Orphan. That discussion had three new participants who neither participated in nor acknowledged the two earlier discussions. The third discussion resulted in the (bold) addition of the three additional parameters that have caused so much trouble over the succeeding years. Thus, the proposed Category:Articles needing additional links or Category:Isolated articles became Category:Low linked articles. Note that per Template talk:Orphan#few parameter this "few" parameter continues to cause much confusion. This has been on my back burner for quite a while, as I hadn't really seen a strong consensus on what to do about it. Now that I've read more of the background discussions prior to its creation, and the more recent village pump discussion you pointed me to, I feel more confident in the resolution. I'll take this back to Template talk:Orphan for a more definitive resolution soon. It's helpful to see that Category:Low linked articles is now empty. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks, yes it does seem redundant in view of the VP consensus and lack of use, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Followup at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orphanage#Deprecating the =few parameter. wbm1058 (talk) 13:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Cho Hyun-woo[edit]

Can you move Cho Hyun-woo -> Jo Hyeon-woo?

This issue don't need discussion. But concensus almost reached.

Please close discussion and move article title. Footwiks (talk)—Preceding undated comment added 08:22, 28 June 2018‎

Shouldn't hurt too much to let this one run another day or two. I'll take a closer look at it later if nobody beats me to closing it. wbm1058 (talk) 01:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Hmm... discussion on User:S.A. Julio's talk page... discussion on User:Hhkohh's talk page. @Footwiks: as an editor who has made over 30 thousand edits over nearly eight years, you should know better than to waste the time of multiple uninvolved editors. There is no reason this matter should not have been kept on Talk:Jo Hyeon-woo. Your hyper-editing of that page was somewhat disruptive; you shouldn't make edits that remove your signature from previous edits. By the time the move request closed, there was no timestamp on your signature, and it was unclear whether you supported the move, or simply commented about the matter. Please familiarize yourself with the WP:Requested moves instructions. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 12:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

User Name Change[edit]

MY user page Rasgulla (Film) was published. But I want to Change page Publish Name. It's Rosogolla (Film), regarding invention of Rasgulla desert, But there spelling is different. So I request change this Name. Rasgulla is not the right name of Movie. Bhattacharya rani (talk) 10:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Read the box at the top of the Talk:Rasgulla (film) § Requested move 3 July 2018 section. "The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached". We wait, to give other editors a chance to respond. If there are no objections or different opinions by July 10, then the page will move to Rosogolla (film) on or about that date. The parenthetical "(film)" is in lowercase because the word is not a proper name. Please be patient. wbm1058 (talk) 10:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Archived DRV[edit]

Can you help me split DRV like 2007 March/May. The proposal format is Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August, thanks Hhkohh (talk) 09:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Right, I see that Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August was in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded, and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May still are. As these are now over ten years old and the last of the deletion review archives that are too big, it's tempting to finally clear up this problem. I've occasionally worked on clearing Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded in the past (generally focused on articles in the category) and now it's down to 544 members. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Hhkohh, I see that Wikipedia:Deletion review/Archive has a table dating back to 2006. From February–November 2006, the table was in a different format which didn't have a problem with transclusion limits, e.g. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 November). Starting with Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December the format changed and the template include size problems began. Rich Farmbrough fixed that month by splitting it in half on 30 September 2009‎, but quit there. Then on 18 February 2016 Pldx1 reported the template include size problem with the eight months January–August 2007. However, their solution implemented the next day wasn't ideal. Some of these such as Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January simply removed the problem from Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded without really fixing it. For other months, such as February 2007, this "fix" was simply reverted. You and SilverbackNet have then split some of these in a similar fashion as Rich. I see that the navigation works good for some, but not for others. Then I see from the edit history that I took a different approach with Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 September on 28 July 2014 (I was working backwards from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 September and I guess I got that far before I quit)‎. "Too many cooks" comes to mind... I'll work on thoroughly fixing them all from start to finish; this shouldn't be such a big deal to get right. Splitting them in half is the better approach, as it limits the lengthy page-load times for pages at the edge of the limit. Apparently after October 2008, the level of activity at DR fell to where the template include size was never a problem again. wbm1058 (talk) 23:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
When I try 2007 Jan yesterday, I cannot save edit due to some blacklist website and I think split to two pages is better to read and avoid exceeded size. As an admin, l think you can fix the problem. Hhkohh (talk) 02:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Indeed I am running into the blacklist right now. I suppose it might be temporarily whitelisted, but I would need to look into how to do that. wbm1058 (talk) 02:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Maybe we can add <!--blacklist source--> or you try to temporarily override blacklist source, what do you think? Hhkohh (talk) 04:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
This is a frustrating feature of the blacklist, even trying to save a page without adding a blacklisted item. Splitting is obviously worse. It encourages legitimate editors to try to find ways around the mechanism. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 08:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC).
@Rich Farmbrough: Why? Hhkohh (talk) 09:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Which bit? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC).
You guys are talking in code ;) I just found a couple examples of how I solved this in July 2014: diff and diff. Preexisting blacklisted items are "grandfathered". Nothing edits a page to remove them when they are added to the blacklist. You can even edit a page with a "grandfathered" item and keep it, as long as you don't edit the blacklisted URL itself. But as soon as you edit it to break the link like I did in those two examples, it loses its "grandfather" status. Those two edits cannot be reverted. So we have three options here. (1) Just leave a link for those pages and don't transclude them (2) Break the links as I did the last time I worked on this (3) Temporarily remove them from the blacklist. I think Rich's comment "encourages legitimate editors to try to find ways around the mechanism" implies we shouldn't take option 3. Beetstra probably has an opinion on this matter. wbm1058 (talk) 16:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Wow, that's a blast from the past. I remember abandoning the project over problems with the blacklist, and while I requested exemptions a few times, they were always denied; in the end I just modified the site as in #2 until I ran out of steam. SilverbackNet talk 20:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
I think, other than resolving the above issue with the failed transclusions of blacklisted pages, I am done with this short project. Interestingly, I was able to simply revert all the kludge edits I made on July 28, 2014 (selected months between Sept 2007 and Sept 2008). I suppose enough of the transcluded templates have been converted into Lua modules in the interim to render the fix no longer necessary. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Does anything require temporary whitelisting still. I think that, in the end, it would be best to disable the links by removing the preceding http://. Threre is generally no need for a working link in archived discussions, it does not change the meaning of the post, and to those really interested there is just a minor inconvenience to have to copy/paste the link. —Dirk Beetstra T C 02:49, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done wbm1058 (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Move review - relist bot actions[edit]

Heya... Just poking you to double check if I might have borked the bot or otherwise done something wrong (or right) when re-opening this previously-closed, now re-listed discussion. In theory (if handled like DRV) one would assume that we'd want the discussion to re-appear as "new" for the purposes of AfD date categorization, for example, but I dunno if that's the convention at MRV or if the bot otherwise knows how to handle it. Also, feel free to rewrite history/fix it if I did something wrong. :P --slakrtalk / 02:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Slakr, you figured it out. The RM template needs to come before the MR template, and swapping them did the trick. wbm1058 (talk) 02:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Single page RM discussion for shared page[edit]

How to open RM for Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Artists since talk page is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting? Hhkohh (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

This issue was raised at User talk:RMCD bot#Shared talk page. I'll take another look at the code to determine how to best handle this scenario, and followup over on the bot's talk page. wbm1058 (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I tried yesterday, but says Request to move a single page must be placed on that page's talk error message when I preview Hhkohh (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Right, I introduced that error messsage in September 2017 (documentation update). See Module talk:Requested move#Support for WikiProject talk pages hosting significant multi-move discussions. So Module:Requested move will need to be updated to support subpage redirects to shared talk pages. I just noticed that Pppery tried, without apparent success, to tweak the module to support this. My concern was that I didn't want the module to support requests such as moving List of cities in Israel proposed on Talk:Palestine. wbm1058 (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Bot request[edit]

Can you create a new bot to take over DumbBOT, it seems down now Hhkohh (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

The bot operator Tizio seems inactive and I have left a message on his talk page yesterday but there is no reply Hhkohh (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
It's only been down for a couple days. Hhkohh, did you email User:Tizio as requested at the top of his user page? wbm1058 (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Not yet, can you help me email him, thanks? Hhkohh (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Use Special:Email. If you haven't set up email yourself, and don't care to disclose your email to other Wikipedia editors, I can email him for you. I use Yahoo! email (it's been my email "forever", since 1999) and set up an email alias for Wikipedia, which I can disable if it ever gets abused. It hasn't been. wbm1058 (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I just emailed Tizio. wbm1058 (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting. The problem should be fixed now, and the bot resume regular operation in a couple of hours. Tizio 22:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)