User talk:Swpb/Archive/2021

Orphaned non-free image File:Skillsoft logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Skillsoft logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of train stations has been nominated for merging

Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of train stations has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of rail transport

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of rail transport requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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 deleted 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice where you have been mentioned

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of television programs has been nominated for merging

Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of television programs has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia requested images of Nickelodeon has been nominated for deletion

Category:Wikipedia requested images of Nickelodeon has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 09:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Choco taco.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Choco taco.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:WikiProject Shirley Jackson

A tag has been placed on Category:WikiProject Shirley Jackson indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tag Team (group) has been nominated for deletion

Category:Tag Team (group) has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Cleanup per WP:DDD"

You recently added a TOC to Bated breath using the above edit summary. However WP:DDD does not even mention TOCes, let alone mandate them. Please review your usage of edit summaries; perhaps you used a prefilled edit summary useful for other tasks? Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 04:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:DAB, the full guide that WP:DDD points to, discusses TOCs, but point taken. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 13:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of overexplaining things: I had two points, not just one. The first point we already appear to agree on. The second is that MOS:DAB does not stipulate disambiguation pages should have tables of content. It only states On longer lists, {{TOC right}} may be used to move the table of contents to the right hand side of the page. I believe you when you say your intended your edit summary "Cleanup per WP:DDD" to also refer to MOS:DAB. However, your edit was to Bated breath, a page so short I would argue it is uncontroversial to characterize it as not in need of a table of content. Meaning that yes, if you find moving a TOC to the right improves readability, go for it - you have MOS:DAB's blessing. But that presumes the TOC is already there, which brings me to the second aspect of my courteous request for you to review your usage of edit summaries: neither WP:DDD nor MOS:DAB mandates TOCs on every disambiguation page. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 11:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understood you the first time. I know they aren't mandated, and I don't put them on every page - I put them on pages with three or more headings, which generally are long enough to benefit from a TOC. In any case I don't see a TOC doing harm. If you think the guideline should specify when not to use a TOC, you should start that discussion on the guideline talk page, not here. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 15:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply is not precise enough for me to abstain from the following specification:

I am not complaining about your actual edit, so there is zero benefit of getting defensive or bringing "harm" into the discussion. Please don't. I am laser-focused on your edit summary. What I am specifically asking you is to not justify edits with an edit summary that gives the impression there is policy behind it... unless of course there is. Instead I encourage you to assume full responsibility for your improvements in your edit summaries. Yes, even though this increases the risk of others opposing your edits.

I sincerely hope this settles the issue once and for all. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those pesky pings

Hi! I had been meaning to comment in the thread at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages for some time (and didn't notice your pings until I finally posted there). But those pings didn't work, probably because the signature wasn't added in the same edit that had the mentions. You can have a look at WP:MENTION, some of the necessary conditions are a bit unexpected. – Uanfala (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the alert! I don't know how I screwed that up. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 14:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited B70, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yavuz Sultan Selim. 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) 06:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Banganga (disambiguation)

Hi Swpb, on Banganga (disambiguation) I edited/removed several entries where you had added an  comment. I know that it can be extremely annoying when editors do this, so I thought I'd give you a chance to disagree/discuss/rant. On the 'policy' side, MOS:DABRED does state that red links can be used, but only if there is an existing article that uses the red link. On the more important side of what helps the reader - if a reader clicks on Rajgir (for example) looking for information on a river named Banganga, they will be disappointed because it is never mentioned. I couldn't find any articles that mention Banganga (waterfall) or Banganga River (Bihar), much less include a link to them, so I removed them. (note: I see that I neglected to include Banganga River (Bihar) in my edit summary). Banganga River (Vaishno) is discussed, but not wikilinked, in Vaishno Devi, so I unlinked the DAB entry to match. Leschnei (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I added those comments through auto wiki browser - the intent was more about not having multiple blue links: I have a script that unlinks the second and subsequent links in an entry, if the first link is blue. If the first link is red, the script leaves that comment on the latter links, so that if the first link becomes blue in the future, someone will know to unlink the subsequent ones. It wasn't meant to imply that the latter links are necessarily appropriate targets for the entry, and I can see how it can be read that way. The message of the comment is meant to be something like "a blue link here is only ok if it's the only blue link in the entry". I'll change the comment to make that clearer. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 15:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Wrong-namespace

Template:Wrong-namespace has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. User:GKFX^talk 11:16, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]