Jump to content

User talk:Wbm1058/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

Happy New Year, Wbm1058!

Happy New Year!

Wbm1058,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
 — Amakuru (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

 — Amakuru (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Amakuru, happy new year to you too! wbm1058 (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Duplicate template parameters

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}}

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

I just noticed Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 June 17#Template:Non-free use rationale 2. Nice. Thanks User:Sdkb! It will be nice to finally clear this off my to-do list (talk page). (wow, what a lengthy discussion to form a consensus to do something that seemed obvious to me nine years ago!) wbm1058 (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Updating r cats

Response to this 21:43, 12 January 2024 edit

I like to leave the occasional redirect with an out-of-date r cat so that you aren't left without maintenace categories to sift through. Thanks for the ping, and for limiting your reproach because I am only #29 in content contributed to WP:RMCI. SilverLocust 💬 23:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for merger of Template:OTRS topicon

Template:OTRS topicon has been nominated for merging with Template:Volunteer Response Team topicon. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Isla🏳️‍⚧ 19:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Just an FYI

I pinged you to the discussion at Primefac's page, re: the VRT topicon. Atsme 💬 📧 00:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Was Eric Harris a neo-Nazi?

If you look at Harris's journal entries, they mention him idolizing and praising Hitler and the Nazis. Also in the audiobook series The War on Everyone (a documentary on the history of American fascism), it lays clear that in addition to Harris idolizing Hitler and the Nazis, he also shared a number of ideological similarities to them, such as hatred of free speech & the press and the desire to have less-than-able people executed. Razzamatazz Buckshank (talk) 10:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I reverted your edit to Template:Neo-Nazism because, as I said in my edit summary, Eric Harris is not independently notable – he is the subject of a joint biography. Per the target article "Some people, such as Robyn Anderson, who knew the perpetrators, stated that the pair were not obsessed with Nazism nor did they worship or admire Hitler in any way." Template:Neo-Nazism is not a place for dumping the name of every person you believe is or has been a neo-Nazi. It should be reserved for people who are primarily known as neo-Nazis. Harris is primarily known as an infamous school shooter, not as a neo-Nazi. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Single A

Sorry, forgot to do that - never have before, hopefully won't again. BilledMammal (talk) 11:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

V2 rocket edit

Hi wbm1058, refer this discussion at wp:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Undue weight given to Fritz von Opel in various space related articles for an explanation of my edit on the V-2 rocket article Ilenart626 (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

"Anglican Church" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Anglican Church has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 16 § Anglican Church until a consensus is reached.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Suno Chanda 2

You are correct about this. Seems to have been part of a larger SOCK history revert and must have assumed it was a newer creation. Thanks for moving back to mainspace. CNMall41 (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Redirect

Regarding your question here, it was almost certainly a mistake on my part. Thanks for fixing. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Re-close of pakeha settlers RM...

Hi, can you please explain how your reclose is not a blatant supervote? Rather than summarizing arguments made in the RM, you are explicitly applying your own opinion and analysis. Your close literally dismisses the opposers' TIES claims, which was the sole rationale offered by almost all the oppose !votes, so from where in that discussion are you drawing the conclusion that the majority of P&G-based arguments were against moving to "European settlers..."? You also ignore major points made by supporters, such as the guidance on TITLES being especially against unfamiliar terminology, the clear analogy made by @LokiTheLiar and others to "crore" explicitly being discouraged even in article prose in favor of universally-understood terms, the numerous examples of CONSISTENCY reported by @Roman Spinner, the overwhelming evidence that NZ academics and news sources in the last five years prefer "European settlers" in the context of NZ colonization, etc., and instead opine on numerous points no one made in the discussion and perform your own research! JoelleJay (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree with JoelleJay; as the closer, you are supposed to summarize and verify the arguments and evidence presented. In your close, you instead make novel arguments and present new evidence, but by virtue of it being a close prevent editors responding to and rebutting your arguments.
Further, I am discomforted by the process; going to the previous closer and effectively telling them "If you overturn your close, I'll make the same close" while a move review is proceeding and, in my opinion, was trending towards overturning to move, seems to be at odds with our standard procedures and our consensus model.
Given the issues with it, will you please convert your close into a !vote? BilledMammal (talk) 02:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree with the above two. This was the WP:SUPERVOTE-y-ist close I've seen in a while: it went on for paragraphs and paragraphs about your opinion on the arguments and barely mentioned the discussion at all. Loki (talk) 02:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Dear wbm1058, I ask you to reconsider. The consensus of an RM discussion is determined by the arguments made in the discussion, not by arguments newly introduced by the closer. Your approach to determining consensus was thoroughly improper. If I ever found myself feeling the need to preemptively write off "cries of 'supervote'", I would be seriously questioning my own judgment. Please undo your action. Adumbrativus (talk) 03:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, WP:DTS. You have here an opportunity to informally discuss the title issue on the article's talk page. I suggest ya'll carpe diem! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 14:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
PS. Just a gentle reminder that "relisting should not be a substitute for a no consensus closure." P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 16:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

While I appreciate you closing in favour of my preferred option I don’t believe you are the right editor to do so; your participation in the discussion, even without !voting, has made you WP:INVOLVED. BilledMammal (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Relisting and participating, a relister may later become a participant or closer in the requested move discussion or survey. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, and you became a participant, presenting extensive arguments. I ask that you withdraw your close and permit an uninvolved editor to close. BilledMammal (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Wbm1058; are you going to respond to my request? Considering that I'm not the only editor seeing this issue, I believe the only appropriate action is to withdraw your close. BilledMammal (talk) 05:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Come on, the close outcome is clearly the only one possible considering how the discussion went, so does it really matter who did it? I also think summarizing a discussion once for the relisting is effectively preparation for a later close, it didn't make wbm1058 an involved participant who couldn't do the close themselves – if anything, that preparation made them uniquely well prepared to close. Time to move on; this thing is settled and that's a good thing. Gawaon (talk) 07:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Wbm1058 went beyond summarizing in their relist and presented novel arguments (for example, their arguments about naturalness); they became involved.
Further, we shouldn't accept involved closes just because they are right; we should make it clear to all editors, particularly administrators, that they should never close discussions they are involved with. I'm also not convinced that everything Wbm1058 said in their close summary is accurate or appropriate, but the issues there are minor compared to the involved violation. BilledMammal (talk) 07:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

This just sounds like more kicking of a dead horse. But I was wrong before when I said that, so I could be wrong again. When I closed as no consensus, I did recognize that it would not take much more support to gain a rough consensus, and the survey and discussion certainly went past that to achieve an unquestionable consensus. Forgive me BilledMammal, but I think your valid concerns still constitute a bureaucratic process that should be countered by WP:IAR. This particular admin is quite knowledgable about the RM process, so we should probably accede to his closure, don't you think? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 08:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may be, or appear to be, incapable of making objective decisions in disputes to which they have been a party or about which they have strong feelings. Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.

One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits that do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator involved.

You're arguing that I was involved in a dispute. Which side do you think I took in that dispute? MAGA or RINO? You're telling me that I'm incapable of making an objective decision. I disagree. You think I have strong feelings about the matter, despite my clear indication that I was content to not move the page. Suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator involved, yet you seem to think I was making arguments rather than suggestions. I disagree.

OK, there is one matter about which I do have strong feelings. Discussions should not be allowed to go on forever. Editors who are allowed to abuse "consensus can change", and keep arguing and appealing and arguing and appealing and arguing and appealing until they finally get their way are not healthy for the project. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I did not wish to say all of this explicitly because it has a potential to be misconstrued and personalised, but under the agreement that you will consider this a position on abstract principles rather than an accusation on your person, here's the involved policy applied to this particular case:
  1. You made non-administrative comments in the discussion (the matter of n-grams). That was in addition to your previous close that was deemed a supervote by enough people to convince you to vacate it, and was subsequently added to the discussion and became a part of the discussion that other participants engaged with.
  2. Having first closed as not-moved and been accused of supervoting, you had an incentive to close it the other way to do a "See, I was not biased, I was only reading consensus. What did I tell you?"
  3. If you had a bias toward "not moved", you also had an incentive to make an involved close for "moved" when the consensus started to be clear for it, so that the legitimacy of that consensus can be easily challenged now or in the future.
Again, I don't believe any of these is true. But these are the reasons that make you involved and why you should not have been the one to close. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
I hear you. In an ideal world we would have an unlimited supply of fresh administrators willing to invest a couple hours in getting themselves up to speed on all lengthy discussions, and promptly close them, and we would have no need for non-administrative closes. We would not have a backlog of two dozen discussions remaining open after a full month. At the time I closed this, it had already spent a full day in "elapsed listing" status, and had fallen well into the backlog. I did not over-speedily close this without giving anyone else an opportunity to close it before I did. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Saw lots of activity going on here and, upon checking, find that Wbm1058 probably deserves a barnstar for sticking with the topic. I've seen scores of long and well-argued discussions topped off by drive-by closers who do two or more closes or relistings in a minute or two, and these make me wonder for a millisecond why I discuss these things at all if the comments aren't really read and analyzed by the closer (but of course I continue commenting "for the record"). Nice work on this close, and Wbm1058 will probably dream in New Zealandish for a few nights. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I think I am more coming from "in an ideal world..." than "this close was wrong...". I guess we'll see. I do appreciate the amount of time and effort you put in to try and resolve it. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

On your recent close

While I'm certainly not going to be appealing your close, I am also quite certain that the arguments I paraphrased as follows are not policy-compliant and should have been discounted:

1. New Zealand English as an ENGVAR incorporating borrow-words from Maori is not a "real" variety of English (and the appraranceexplicitly/belief that it is "real" represents an attempt at "progressive" social engineering).

2. When it comes to article titles and text, WP:TITLEVAR only instructs us to use the spelling, but not the word choice, of the ENGVAR in question.

I don't think it was good practice for you to endorse such arguments by saying I don't see any blatant policy-contradicting opinions to discount, as you did in your close. Newimpartial (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any blatant policy-contradicting opinions to discount, from the opinions which were neither too long to read nor incomprehensible. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
If that was trying to say that wikt:pākehā was not a "real" word, I disagree with that. It's in the dictionary. wbm1058 (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
One active contributor to the discussion did argue that Maori words don't belong in an English encyclopaedia and that Maori flags don't belong on his flagpole. But I digress.
More importantly, based on the nose count used to calculate your percentages, I am morally certain you included !votes without a sound basis in policy, whether incomprehebsible or not. And that kind of nose counting - which is part of a vicious cycle - is what drives me (and some other editors) to cynicism about RfCs. Newimpartial (talk) 01:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
The ship sailed a long time ago on trying to keep non-English words out of the English Wikipedia. Recently, in my work as a gnome, I've found myself instructed to make spelling corrections, where the only "misspelling" is not actually a letter, but just the wrong diacritic appearing over the letter. I lack the expertise to know whether a diacritic has been correctly used or not, and don't enjoy having to maintain such a high level of "perfection". English itself makes very limited use of diacritics, and I'd prefer the community to just not use them in the English words.
Remember that the titling criteria are goals, not rules. Relatively little about titles goes so far as to violate policies, rather than bend some goals, usually in favor of other, contradictory goals. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Wbm, while I am not going to be appealing either—I am not looking into the the substance of it—you simply should not have closed. By reopening/relisting the last time, when you were asked to on the basis that your close rationale was a supervote, and then putting your close rationale into the discussion, you became very involved. It's not the kind of discussion an involved editor should be closing. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
To editors Usedtobecool and Newimpartial: please see my response to editor BilledMammal [above]. Thank you! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 08:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:European_settlers_in_New_Zealand#Requested_move_30_December_2023

I would prefer to avoid taking this to yet another move review. Instead, I was hoping you would be willing to strike the last sentence of your close, both because you are too involved in the discussion to make such an assessment, and because I don't see any basis in the discussion to say that there is a consensus for this "common ground", and your close doesn't explain why you see there to be such a consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 07:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I would prefer to not see this move reviewed yet again too. I thought all the drama over this was done when I archived the topic. Regarding the persistent allegations that I'm somehow "involved" – I've never set foot in New Zealand, and was unfamiliar with the term "pakeha" before I came upon this RM. In my view, one must at least be aware of a topic in order to have "strong feelings" about it. I never said there was a consensus for "common ground". We have common ground because there is a lack of consensus for a hard tilt in one direction over another. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The issue is that by putting it in the close statement you give your opinion the weight of consensus. As an alternative, if you reword the close to make it clear that there is no consensus for the "common ground" statement and that it is merely your opinion? BilledMammal (talk) 03:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Again I'm not following what you're on about. Aren't all RM closes essentially the equivalent of judicial opinions, i.e. all my RM closes are my opinion of the consensus, or lack of it, and remedies for dealing with the lack of consensus if there is one. – wbm1058 (talk) 10:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
No; judicial opinions involve the judges opinion, while the closer should not be interjecting their opinion - and doing so would be a WP:SUPERVOTE.
Further, if there is a lack of consensus it isn't the closers responsibility or right to create a consensus - all they can say is that there is no consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 03:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
There is a concept called administrative discretion (wikt:discretion). A search of project space finds this concept is frequently asserted. In recent years, there have been increasing numbers of non-administrator closes, and these closes have increasingly crept into territory where administrative discretion probably should be applied. The result is that "administrative discretion" is becoming a quaint and forgotten concept on Wikipedia. This is not healthy for the project, and this creep has led to increasing backlogs of discussions which are almost impossible to close.
I did not "create" a consensus. I found a (weak) consensus to move the page to European settlers in New Zealand, and no consensus to purge the term "pakeha" from the English language. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

abbreviation and your revert

Why did you revert my edit? I just put an abbreviation and didn't claim that it's an improvement. There are many problematic edits here hope you also spend your time to correct or revert those edits which are "really" problematic. Egeymi (talk) 16:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

This is my relevant edit. @Egeymi: belated reply. There is a note about this on my bot account's user page User:RMCD bot. One of its listed tasks:
In this particular case it's not an issue because Wikipedia:WikiProject Magazines/Article alerts exists, but if that page did not exist, my bot would not post a notice of this requested move on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Magazines page with the {{WP Magazines}} template on Talk:Shukan Shincho, whereas it would with the {{WikiProject Magazines}} template. Bots do not automatically follow redirects, and extra coding effort needs to be made to make that happen.
There, I've taken the time to explain my reason. Apparently your reason is nothing more than "because I like it that way", if I'm understanding you correctly. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

"Finnster" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Finnster has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 13 § Finnster until a consensus is reached. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 13:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

MGA

Just curious, but why did you undelete Multiple gender attraction? The deleted content is not the same as the redirect, so restoration doesn't really make sense. Primefac (talk) 13:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Seems similar enough to me. I'm confused about what the problem is, but then I'm also confused about why there are so many terms that seem to mean the same thing, but don't actually mean the same thing? wbm1058 (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Not a problem, really, just didn't see the point in restoring a (deleted) non-redirect when the new content is a redirect so was wondering if I missed a refund request or something. Primefac (talk) 13:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The previous editor claimed that the term was "incorrect". I restored the history to show that there was, in past edits, some basis for claims that the term is actually a (correct) valid alternative. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Ah, makes sense. Primefac (talk) 13:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Timeline of United States inventions (1946–1991)

Hello, Wbm1058,

This article was deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of United States inventions (1946–1991). Why did you restore the article without any discussion? Liz Read! Talk! 07:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: My bad for not leaving an edit summary on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of United States inventions (1946–1991). I just deleted Talk:Timeline of United States inventions (1946–1991)/Archive 1, which is where I moved the old talk after the new talk Talk:Timeline of United States inventions (1946–1991) was created. Did you read that before you deleted it? If not, where did you expect to find the discussion about this? I'm fine with deleting it again, as it seems that Washington Charter was trolling us, and a reasonable time limit for them to continue engaging at Talk:Timeline of United States inventions (1946–1991) had expired. Their most recent active edit is again from 14 May 2019, now that they have six new deleted contributions. I was intending to subst: the new talk onto the end of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of United States inventions (1946–1991) before I deleted it, but realize this was an unusual situation, and I'm not sure about the procedures for dealing with it. – wbm1058 (talk) 10:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
We also have three red links in hatnotes:
Timeline of United States inventions (after 1991), Timeline of United States inventions (before 1890), ‎Timeline of United States inventions (1890–1945)
Clearing out Category:Articles with hatnote templates targeting a nonexistent page doesn't seem to be anyone's priority.
But Timeline of United States inventions, I see you took care of that. – wbm1058 (talk) 10:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Felicity Kendal

The info about Kendal being part of the actors company can be found in Gibson 1986 as cited in the body of the article. See also Ruling the Roost and Tis Pity She's a Whore at McKellen's site. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that, after I reverted, also The Actors' Company. Feels odd to have an article about a company "inspired" by that, but not about the thing that inspired it. Feel free to add the info back, albeit with better citations and taking care not to make any more misspellings. :0 Thanks. wbm1058 (talk) 11:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Housing crisis (disambiguation)

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 Housing crisis (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

  • disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
  • disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
  • is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Chinese religion (disambiguation)

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 Chinese religion (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

  • disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
  • disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
  • is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in April 1917

Re your edits to remove the list of shipwrecks in April 1917 from the template limit exceeded category, probably the easiest way is by replacing {{flagcountry|UKGBI|civil}} with [[File:Civil Ensign of the United Kingdom.svg|22px]] [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland|United Kingdom]]. This produces the same result visually. The UK civil flag is likely to be the most used in any shipwreck list at least until the 1950s, so changing the flag removes a large number of templates and guards against the list subsequently falling into the category again. AFAIK, no other shipwreck lists fall into the template limit exceeded category, but if you do come across any others, give me a shout and I'll fix the issue. Mjroots (talk) 07:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mjroots: I don't know about that being the "easiest way". To unpack {{flagcountry}} I needed to make a series of three substitutions, which left behind a bunch of programming logic (#if and #ifeq statements) transcluded into the article (see my recent edits to List of shipwrecks in April 1917). It's not immediately clear whether making your suggested edit loses any of that embedded functionality, though it seems not. Whereas by simply bypassing a template shell that transcludes the output of a Lua module, I'm guaranteed not to lose any embedded functionality. I think the "best" solution would be to rewrite at least some of the template logic into a Lua module, and someday I'll get around to becoming more proficient with Lua so I can more readily do that.
But there's more than one way to get the job done. Feel free to revert my edits and solve the issue another way, if you feel that's better. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Agree that there's often more than one way to get the job done. As I understand it, there is a finite number of templates that can be used in an article. Not sure of the number but being computer code it's probably a power of 2 (1,024, 2,048, 4,096 etc). Changing the flags in the way I described does remover a larg number of templates from the article. I'll not revert your changes as they had the desired effect, but I feel that the article is probably still very near the template limit. Should it fall into the category again, then we'll change the flags. Mjroots (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
@Mjroots: FYI. There are several technical limits. The limit this article hit was the Post-expand include size. Currently the article includes (transcludes) 2,007,669 bytes, and the limit is 2,097,152 bytes. So yes, it is still close to the limit. You can see this in Show preview, under "Parser profiling data" (help) – you may need to click on that if it isn't showing by default. wbm1058 (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Now 2,044,834 of 2,097,152 bytes – wbm1058 (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
The system is timing out with an error message when I try to see the diff of my edit, but I see that {{coord}} was transcluded 242 times; I believe I replaced those, e.g. {{coord|48|20|N|6|00|W}} with {{#invoke:Coordinates|coord|48|20|N|6|00|W}}. There is no difference in output. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
And now it appears that four more shipwecks have been added to the list, transcluding {{coord}} rather than directly invoking the module. wbm1058 (talk) 14:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Belatedly following up on this, four years later. Now the Post-expand include size is 1,691,091/2,097,152 bytes – well within the limit, so the problem has been solved.
Indeed there were some 200 |flag={{flagcountry|UKGBI|civil}} templates, which were replaced with |flag={{#invoke:flag|country|UKGBI|civil}}.
Module:Flag was created @01:48, 7 May 2020‎ by Ahecht. I can archive this now. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

English Heritage lists breaking transclusion limits

Scheduled monuments in Mendip

Thanks for your fixes on Scheduled monuments in Mendip. I don't quite understand the code of what you are doing but if it is about the number of reference templates breaking the maximum size, would your fix work on Grade II* listed buildings in South Somerset where the last few references don't display - possibly for the same reason?— Rod talk 08:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rod, yes, similar issues there, though InternetArchiveBot hasn't visited that page recently. There is a discussion about the solution to this at User talk:cyberpower678/Archive 60#English Heritage website changed the URL syntax for accessing its site database. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
New problem reported at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Historic sites#Recent template changes broke a few list-type articles, recommend splitting them to fix the problem – wbm1058 (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Re: Your edit at Template:English Heritage listed building row

In regards to the edit you made at Special:Diff/974562485, the fact that the module output is transcluded by Template:English Heritage listed building row not only means that invoking the module directly matters, it actually means that it matters twice as much! Per Wikipedia:Template_limits#Nested_transclusions, any bytes produced by the module will be counted once if {{#invoke:delink|delink}} is invoked directly, they will be counted twice if {{delink}} is used to call {{#invoke:delink|delink}}, and they will be counted four times if {{English Heritage listed building row}} calls {{delink}} which calls {{#invoke:delink|delink}}. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 00:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Heh. Following up; checking in on the status of this. @21:12, 12 June 2024 Ahecht made Template:English Heritage listed building row use Module:English Heritage listed building to reduce post-expand include size. I know who to call when I run into similar problems in the future! I can archive this now. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Typo backlog

I'm using WP:JCW/TYPO to find those. I don't usually bother flagging the correct forms since the typo forms are so seldom used. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Here's a list of WP AJ-tagged typos/incorrect names/mispellings. Some may be incorrectly tagged, like needing a {{R from database entry}} or {{R from miscaps}} instead. Many/most are from missing/stray dots, or wrong plurals, or missing/stray commas. Others from bad abbreviations. Some are ambiguous too, like J. Phys could be for either J Phys and J. Phys.

Extended content
  1. ACTA MEDICA PORTUGUESA
  2. ADVANCE for NPs & PAs
  3. AMBIO
  4. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment
  5. Academia analitica
  6. Academie des Sciences Paris Comptes Rendus
  7. Accounting perspectives
  8. Accounting, Organisations and Society
  9. Acta Neerlandica morphologiae normalis et pathologicae
  10. Acta Neurobiol Exp (Wars).
  11. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica (AOGS)
  12. Acta neurobiologiae experimentalis
  13. Adv. Difference Equ
  14. Advance Drug Delivery Reviews
  15. Advanced difference equations
  16. Advances in Difference Equations.
  17. Advances in difference equations
  18. Africa bibliography
  19. African Journal of International and Comparative law
  20. African Safety Promotion : a Journal of Injury and Violence Prevention
  21. African and Black Diaspora: an International Journal
  22. African journal of international and comparative law
  23. African-American archaeology newsletter
  24. Aging and mental health (journal)
  25. Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research
  26. Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics
  27. Am J Med Genet.
  28. American Journal of Medical Sciences
  29. American astron soc 215th meeting
  30. American journal of audiology
  31. American journal of business
  32. American journal of the medical sciences
  33. Analytical sciences digital library
  34. Animal production science
  35. Animal reproduction science
  36. Animation studies
  37. Ann Surg Oncol.
  38. Ann Surg.
  39. Ann. Surg. Onc.
  40. Annali dell'Istituto Superiore Di Sanità
  41. Annali dell'Istituto superiore di sanita
  42. Annals of tourism research
  43. Annals of tropical medicine and parasitology
  44. Annual Bulletin (CLB)
  45. Annual Review of Biomedical Engineeering
  46. Annual Reviews of Fluid Mechanics
  47. Antennas and Wireless Propagation Lett.
  48. Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters, IEEE
  49. Anthropology In Action
  50. Anthropology In Action (journal)
  51. Análisis filosófico
  52. AoB PLANTS
  53. Applied science and technology full text
  54. Aquaculture research
  55. Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts
  56. Archiv for mathematik og naturvidenskab
  57. Archiv für pathologische Anatomie und Physiologie und für klinische Medizin
  58. Archives Neerlandaises du Zoologie
  59. Archives of natural history
  60. Archives of sexual behavior
  61. Arkiv för zoologi
  62. Arqueología mexicana
  63. Artibus asiae
  64. Asia pacific journal of chemical engineering
  65. Asia-Pacific Journal Of Public Health
  66. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences (AJAS)
  67. Association of psychological and social studies
  68. Astron. Astroph.
  69. Astronomy & Geophysics: the Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society
  70. Astronomy And Astrophysics
  71. Astronomy and Astrophysics Supp. Ser.
  72. Astronomy and astrophysics
  73. Astronomy, astrophysics
  74. Australian journal of experimental agriculture
  75. Australian journal of experimental agriculture and animal husbandry
  76. Ayandeh: a Persian Journal of Iranian studies
  77. Ayandeh: a Persian journal of Iranian studies
  78. Bangladesh Journals OnLine (BanglaJOL)
  79. Bangladesh journal of pharmacology
  80. Behavior Brain Research
  81. Behavior genetics association
  82. Behavioural and Brain Sciences
  83. Bell System Technical Journals
  84. Biochemical and biophysical research communications
  85. Biochemistry.
  86. Biochimica Et Biophysica Acta
  87. Bioethical Inquiry
  88. Biofpr
  89. Biofuels, Bioprod Biorefin
  90. Biofuels, Bioprod. Biorefin.
  91. Bioimpacts
  92. Biol Chem Hoppe Seyler
  93. Biol Chem Hoppe Seyler.
  94. Biol Chem.
  95. Biol. Chem. Hoppe. Seyler.
  96. Biological Research For Nursing
  97. Biological chemistry Hoppe-Seyler
  98. Biology letters
  99. Bioscience horizons
  100. Biosis Previews
  101. Br J Pharmacol.
  102. Br Med J.
  103. Brain Struct Func
  104. Brain Struct. Func.
  105. British Journal of Development Psychology
  106. British journal of mathematical and statistical psychology
  107. British journal of urology
  108. British medical Journal
  109. British medical journal
  110. Bulletin de la Société Belge D'Études Coloniales
  111. Bulletin of The Museum of Comparative Zoology
  112. Business & Information Systems Engineering (BISE)
  113. Business and society review
  114. C. R. Acad. Sc. Paris
  115. CSA Sociological Abstracts.
  116. Canadian Journal of Neurological Science
  117. Canadian journal of administrative sciences
  118. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention
  119. Cancer chemotherapy and pharmacology
  120. Cardiology in Review.
  121. Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology
  122. Cell Motility & Cytoskeleton
  123. Cell Motility and Cytoskeleton
  124. Cell motility and cytoskeleton
  125. Cell: Stem Cell
  126. Chemical Engineering And Biotechnology Abstracts
  127. Chemico-biological Interactions
  128. Chemmedchem
  129. Chemometrics and intelligent laboratory systems
  130. Chest journal
  131. Chinese journal of cancer
  132. Chinese medical journal
  133. Chinese physics b
  134. Cinahl
  135. Circ Res.
  136. Circulation Research.
  137. Circulation research
  138. Clin Genet.
  139. Clinical Pharmacokinectics (journal)
  140. College of Family Physicians Canada
  141. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
  142. Communications in information literacy
  143. Computer information & Technology Abstracts
  144. Contemporary Sociology-A Journal Of Reviews
  145. Contemporary Sociology: A Journal Of Reviews
  146. Contemporary accounting research
  147. Contemporary economic policy
  148. Contemporary psychoanalysis
  149. Cooperation and Conflict: Nordic journal of international relations
  150. Crime Media Culture
  151. Criminal Justice And Behavior
  152. Critical Reviews in Physical Rehabilitation Medicine
  153. Crystal Growth & Design.
  154. Crystal Growth and Design.
  155. Current Alzheimer Research Journal
  156. Current eye research
  157. Current opinion in Microbiology
  158. Current opinion in neurology and neurosurgery
  159. Cytojournal
  160. Database (Journal)
  161. Decisions sciences (journal)
  162. Diabetic hypoglycemia journal
  163. Dialogue: a Journal of Mormon Thought
  164. Differences: A Journal of Cultural Feminist Studies
  165. Differences: a journal of feminist cultural studies
  166. Disability and rehabilitation
  167. Disability and rehabilitation assistive technology
  168. EMBIOLOGY
  169. EMBO journal & reports
  170. Earth Sci. Planet. Lett.
  171. Earth surface processes and landforms
  172. Economic Letters
  173. Educational Evaluation And Policy Analysis
  174. Emerging themes in epidemiology
  175. Environmental Law (Law Review)
  176. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment.
  177. Environmental and Resource Economics (ERE)
  178. Environmental monitoring and Assessment
  179. Environmental monitoring and Assessment.
  180. Environmental monitoring and assessment
  181. Environmental monitoring and assessment.
  182. Estuar. Coast Shelf Sci.
  183. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science
  184. Estuarine, Coastal, and Shelf Science
  185. Ethics & International Affairs Journal
  186. Eur J Pharmacol.
  187. Eurointervention
  188. European Physical Journal Conferences
  189. European archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience
  190. European journal of pharmacology
  191. European review
  192. Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine
  193. Evol Anthr
  194. Evol. Anthr.
  195. Expert Opinion On Environmental Biology
  196. Expert review of anticancer therapy
  197. FEBS letters
  198. Families, Systems and Health Journal
  199. Fashion Theory The Journal of Dress, Body & Culture
  200. Feminist Theory (Journal)
  201. Film international
  202. Food Structure Journal 1982-1993
  203. Food and chemical toxicology
  204. Francis (database)
  205. Front Neuroendocrinol.
  206. Frontiers in neuroendocrinology
  207. Frontiers of information technology and electronics engineering
  208. Frontiers: A Journal of Women's Studies
  209. Fund. Appl. Toxicol.
  210. Fungal genetics and biology
  211. Genes Brain and Behavior
  212. Genes Brain and Behaviour
  213. Genes brain behav
  214. Genes, Brain, and Behavior
  215. Genes, brain, and behavior
  216. Genetic epidemiology (journal)
  217. Geobase
  218. Geografski zbornik
  219. Geologica acta
  220. German Journal for Evidence and Quality in Healthcare ZEFQ
  221. Guide to Receptors and Channels (GRAC)
  222. Guide to receptors and channels
  223. Harvard law and policy review
  224. Hastings Constitut Law Q
  225. Hastings Constitut. Law Q.
  226. Health Risk & Society Journal
  227. Health Services Research journal
  228. Health and Human Rights Journal
  229. High technology law journal
  230. Hoppe-Seylers Zeitschriftfür Pysiologische Chemie
  231. Hoppe. Seylers. Z. Physiol. Chem.
  232. Human reproduction update
  233. Human rights review
  234. IEEE Antenn Wireless Propag Lett
  235. IEEE Antenn. Wireless Propag. Lett.
  236. IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Lett.
  237. IEEE Microwave Theory and Wireless Component Letters
  238. IEEE Style
  239. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems and Technologies
  240. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics
  241. IEEE microwave and guided wave letters.
  242. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMATIC AND EVOLUTIONARY MICROBIOLOGY
  243. IRAN (journal)
  244. Ieee microwave and guided wave letters
  245. Ijslp
  246. Imaging in medicine
  247. Indian Journal of Dermatology, Venereology, and Leprology
  248. Indiana university mathematics journal
  249. Information Research: An international electronic journal
  250. Information Services Corporation (ISC)
  251. Institute of Scientific Information
  252. Integrative medicine research
  253. International Association of Engineering Geology and the Environment
  254. International Bibliography of Periodical Literature on the Humanities and Social Science
  255. International Bibliography of Social Sciences
  256. International Federation for Documentation and Information
  257. International Journal for Applied Philosophy
  258. International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science (AMCS)
  259. International Journal of Computer Processing Of Languages
  260. International Journal of Ecology & Development (IJED)
  261. International Journal of Pediatric Obesity (JPO)
  262. International Journal of Private Law (IJPL)
  263. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology (TASL)
  264. International Society for General Relativity and Gravitation
  265. International journal of Energy and Combustion Science
  266. International journal of language and communication disorders
  267. International journal of speech language pathology
  268. International journal of speech-language pathology
  269. International journal of sports marketing & sponsorship
  270. IrMedJ
  271. Iranian Journal of Fuzzy System
  272. Iranian Studies (Journal)
  273. Island Arc (Journal)
  274. Issues in science and technology librarianship
  275. Italian review of economics demography and statistics
  276. J Agric Food Chem.
  277. J Behav Med.
  278. J Cell Biol.
  279. J Child Psychol Psychiat
  280. J Geol Ed
  281. J Geophys Res.
  282. J Geoscience Education
  283. J Neurotrauma.
  284. J Pharmacol Exp Ther.
  285. J of Neurotrauma
  286. J. Child. Psychol. Psychiat.
  287. J. Lightwave Tech
  288. J. Natl Cancer Inst
  289. J. Neurotrauma.
  290. J. Orthop. Trauma.
  291. JAMA & Archives For The Media
  292. JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association
  293. JAMA: the journal of the American Medical Association
  294. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH
  295. Jge
  296. Jmps
  297. John Hopkins University Press
  298. John Wiley & Sons, INC
  299. Journal Citation Report
  300. Journal Henoch
  301. Journal Of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology
  302. Journal of African cultural studies
  303. Journal of African economies
  304. Journal of African law
  305. Journal of Behavioural Medicine
  306. Journal of Clinical Endocrionology Research
  307. Journal of East Asian Economic Integration (JEAI)
  308. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization
  309. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability (JIDD)
  310. Journal of Intelligent and Robotics System
  311. Journal of Intelligent and Robotics Systems
  312. Journal of Mining and Metallurgy / B
  313. Journal of Orthopedic Research
  314. Journal of Pharmacy and bioallied Sciences
  315. Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
  316. Journal of Physics D-applied physics
  317. Journal of Sexuality Research and Social Policy
  318. Journal of Welsh ecclesiastical history
  319. Journal of affective disorders
  320. Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy
  321. Journal of biochemistry
  322. Journal of business logistics
  323. Journal of chemical ecology
  324. Journal of clinical gastroenterology.
  325. Journal of collective negotiations
  326. Journal of consumer affairs
  327. Journal of contemporary African studies
  328. Journal of cosmetic and laser therapy
  329. Journal of economic behavior and organization
  330. Journal of experimental and theoretical artificial intelligence
  331. Journal of formalized reasoning
  332. Journal of general physiology
  333. Journal of information science
  334. Journal of modern African studies
  335. Journal of pan african studies
  336. Journal of psychosomatic obstetrics and gynecology
  337. Journal of sexual and marital therapy
  338. Journal of soft computing in civil engineering
  339. Journal of stem cell and regenerative medicine
  340. Journal of stem cells & regenerative medicine
  341. Journal of stem cells and regenerative medicine
  342. Journal of structural biology
  343. Journal of the American Academy of Physician Assistants (JAAPA)
  344. Journal of the Transaction of The Victoria Institute
  345. Journalseek
  346. Jpn. J. Appl. Phys
  347. Kairos: a journal of rhetoric, technology, and pedagogy
  348. Kidney International Supplement
  349. Konsultativnaya psikhologiya i psikhoterapiya
  350. Konsultativnaya psikhologiya i psikhoterapiya (Russian journal)
  351. Lab Invest.
  352. Lab. Chip
  353. Le Practicien en Anesthésie Réanimation
  354. Leonardo Journal
  355. Liber annuus
  356. List of Pharmacy Journals
  357. List of Probability journals
  358. Macromolecules Journal
  359. Materials evaluation (journal)
  360. Materials science and engineering R
  361. Mathematical social sciences
  362. Med Anthropol Q.
  363. Media Culture & Society
  364. Media Culture Society
  365. Media, Culture, & Society
  366. Mediations Journal
  367. Medical journal of Zambia
  368. Memórias Do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz
  369. Memórios do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz
  370. Messenger of mathematics
  371. MetaPress
  372. Mich J Environ Admin Law
  373. Mich. J. Environ. Admin. Law
  374. Microbiol.
  375. Micron (Journal)
  376. Microwave Theory and Techniques, IEEE Transactions on
  377. Microwave and Guided Wave Letters, IEEE
  378. Montgomeryshire collections
  379. Myrmecological news
  380. N Biotechnol
  381. N Eng J Med
  382. N Eng J Med.
  383. N. Biotechnol.
  384. NANO (Journal)
  385. Nanoscale Journal
  386. Nasen
  387. Nat Med.
  388. Nat Meth
  389. Nat. Cancer.
  390. Nat. Med
  391. Nat. Medicine
  392. National Cancer Institute monograph
  393. Natural science journal
  394. Nature genetics
  395. Nature.
  396. Neurobehavioral toxicology and teratology
  397. Neurobiol Dis.
  398. Neurobiology of disease
  399. Neurochemistry international
  400. Neurorehabil Neural Repair.
  401. Neurorehabilitation and neural repair
  402. Neurosci Biobehav Rev.
  403. Neurosci. Lett
  404. Neuroscience Biobehavioral Review
  405. Neuroscience Biobehavioral Reviews
  406. Neuroscience and Biobehavioural Reviews
  407. Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews
  408. Neuroscience and biobehavioural reviews
  409. Neurotoxicol Teratol.
  410. Nordic Journal of English Studies (NJES)
  411. North american society of adlerian psychology
  412. Notes and Records: the Royal Society journal of the history of science
  413. Nucl. Inst. And Meth. B
  414. Nucl. Inst. and Meth. B
  415. Omics Publishing Group
  416. Optical materials (Amsterdam, Netherlands)
  417. Oral Tradition Journal
  418. Organic Research Database.
  419. Organic research database
  420. Organic research database.
  421. Organization (Journal)
  422. P L o S One
  423. Palaios
  424. Paleontol
  425. Paleontologicheskii zhurnal
  426. Paleontology (journal)
  427. Pascal database
  428. Peace & Change: a Journal of Peace Research
  429. Physical Review A : atomic, molecular and optical physics
  430. Physical Review E statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics
  431. Physical review. E, Statistical physics, plasmas, fluids, and related interdisciplinary topics
  432. Physics Abstracts.
  433. Physics abstracts series A
  434. Physics today
  435. Physiotherapy:theory & practise
  436. Physmath Central
  437. Phytomedicine (Journal)
  438. Pic'ma v Astronomicheskii Zhurnal
  439. Pjbr
  440. Pjss
  441. Plastic and reconstructive surgery
  442. Plos one
  443. Political Psychology journal
  444. Portuguese journal of social science
  445. Proceedings of The Natural Institute of Science
  446. Prog Neurobiol.
  447. Prog Neurobiology
  448. Prog Theo Phys
  449. Progress In Electromagnetic Research
  450. Progress In Electromagnetic Research.
  451. Progress In Electromagnetics Research
  452. Progress In Electromagnetics Research.
  453. Progress in neurobiology
  454. Project Muse
  455. PsycInfo
  456. PsychINFO
  457. PsychInfo
  458. Psychiatr Q.
  459. Psychosom Med.
  460. Public Library of Science ONE
  461. Quest: an African journal of philosophy
  462. Red Alyc
  463. Reproduction Fertility and Development
  464. Research society on alcoholism
  465. Respiratory research (journal)
  466. Review of African political economy
  467. Reviews of Geophysics and Space physics
  468. Reviews of geophysics
  469. Revista de la Asociación Geológica de Argentina
  470. Rivista italiana di economia demografia e statistica (RIEDS)
  471. Sage Open
  472. Scanning the journal of scanning microscopies
  473. Sci.
  474. Scientia marina
  475. Scottish affairs
  476. Slovene Studies Journal
  477. Social Psychology and Personality Science
  478. Social science history
  479. Society for social neuroscience
  480. Sociology Abstracts.
  481. Solar Energy Journal
  482. Solicitors journal
  483. Sonus: a journal of investigations into global music possibilities
  484. South African Medical Journal = Suid-Afrikaanse Tydskrif Vir Geneeskunde
  485. Springer publishing
  486. Stan. Envtl. L. J.
  487. Strategic Organization (Journal)
  488. Stress journal
  489. Structure and Dynamics eJournal of the Anthropological and Related Sciences
  490. Studia etymologica cracoviensia
  491. Studia neoaristotelica
  492. Supply Chain Management: an International Journal
  493. Surg. Edosc.
  494. Svenska historiska foreningen
  495. Svenska historiska föreningen
  496. Syst. Bot
  497. TORTURE journal
  498. Technical communication quarterly
  499. Textual practice
  500. The American journal of the medical sciences
  501. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews
  502. The College of Family Physicians Canada
  503. The Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems
  504. The Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.
  505. The New England journal of medicine
  506. The american journal of the medical sciences
  507. The journal of Commonwealth Literature
  508. The quarterly journal of pure and applied mathematics
  509. Tools and Algorithms for Construction and Analysis of Systems
  510. Toxicological sciences
  511. Toxicology letters
  512. Trade, Law and Development (TL&D)
  513. Transactions of The Microscopical Society & Journal
  514. Treatment Guidelines from The Medical Letter
  515. Trends in Cognitive Science
  516. Trends in Plant Sciences
  517. Ultrasound in medicine and biology
  518. University Pittsburgh Law Rev
  519. University Pittsburgh Law Rev.
  520. Verhandlungen der Deutschen Physikalischen Gesselschaft
  521. Victorian Periodical Newsletter
  522. Virol J.
  523. Virol. J
  524. VirolJ
  525. Vision research
  526. Volume ! The French journal of popular music studies
  527. Volume! The French journal of popular music studies
  528. Welsh journals online
  529. Western Journal Of Medicine
  530. Wiley Periodicals, Inc.,
  531. World development (journal)
  532. Wylie Blackwell
  533. Wylie-Blackwell
  534. X-Ray Spectrometry journal
  535. Yale L. J.
  536. Yale journal of criticism
  537. Z. Naturforsch
  538. Z. Naturforsch A
  539. Z. Naturforsch B
  540. Z. Naturforsch Teil A
  541. Z. Naturforsch Teil B
  542. Z. Naturforsch. A.
  543. Z. anorg allgem Chemie
  544. Zeitschrift for Physics
  545. Zion (Journal)
  546. Ztschr f Philos u philos Kritik

Headbomb {t · c · p · b}— Preceding undated comment added 23:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

JL-Bot, task 7

Oh, I see: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/JL-Bot 7 provides journal citation statistics for WP:JOURNALS. I was not aware of that bot's activities. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Six relevant pages created and maintained by the bot. None of them were part of the original July 2011 BRFA. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I see that Headbomb has just requested a seventh report be added to the list. OK, I guess I might find the defacto BRFAs for the above in the bot's talk archives. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Headbomb, when you said Some are ambiguous too, like J. Phys could be for either J Phys and J. Phys. a year ago (see above), I'm still confused about what that meant. J. Phys is a red link, which no pages other than this talk page link to, and both J Phys and J. Phys. link to the page Journal of Physics so I don't see any ambiguity there. This new bot request, which I don't understand, has something to do with this? The reason it took me a year to follow up is that you continue to talk to me in riddles which take me hours to decode, and my time is way oversubscribed. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
When I say "J. Phys" is ambiguous, I mean the correction could either be "J. Phys." or "J Phys", depending on whether or not the article has a consistent dotted style, or consistent undotted style. Or it has no style, and either correction is 'fine' until one style is picked. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Also why are you looking for these BRFAs? They're expansions of existing tasks. They don't need BRFAs. Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-08-01/In_focus will give you a historical overwiew, however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, Headbomb. I recall seeing that Signpost article about a year ago, and finding it TL;DR – I shouldn't have. Now I've read it. The pertinent lines, for the intersection of our "busses" on Wikipedia:
How am I supposed to know in advance that these tasks piggybacked on a previously-approved BRFA rather than getting approved as new BRFAs? Right, as I suspected, I'll find the defacto BRFAs for the above in the bot's talk archives. Or, more precisely, what you asked the bot coder and operator to implement. Now I'm off to read that earlier Signpost article about finding common typos, misspellings, miscapitalizations. Sorry I haven't been paying closer attention. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
My question is why would you expect them to have individual BRFAs in the first place? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't know, I suppose it's possible that this bot's operator sometimes implements enhancements that they designed on their own, without discussing them with anybody. I've occasionally done that myself. But after digging through the haystack, I found User talk:JL-Bot/Archive 5#'Exact' searches, which is the "defacto BRFA" I was looking for. But, as you warned me, that discussion is pretty technical, so I still have only the foggiest idea about how those reports are generated. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
We're talking past each other a bit here. That was obviously a bot request (BR), but as for the FA part, the only person who had to approve it was the bot operator. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:19, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

German Journal for Evidence and Quality in Healthcare ZEFQ

@Headbomb: This is the thing that prompted me to resurrect this thread after a year. I've been working on clearing up my User:Wbm1058/Reports/Linked incorrect names table, and this redirect came up. I see that you tagged it on 15 August 2022 with {{R from incorrect name}}. I noticed that what links here listed this talk page. It's listed above in that "extended content" table of 546 redirects. I'm assuming that you tagged two years ago because it came up on one of the bot's reports, but I don't know which report it came up on or why, because "what links here" isn't showing any WP:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Maintenance subpage – though it is linked from Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Lists of pages/Non-talk pages, Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Lists of pages/All pages, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Lists of pages/Articles. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Is it really important to know in which report it came from? It might not even have been in any of those reports. I might have been me looking at WP:JCW/G15 and I wondered what ZEFQ stood for. Or maybe it was listed in WP:JCW/DOI/10.1010#1016, or WP:JCW/Publisher1#Elsevier or Special:WhatLinksHere and I asked the same question.
What matters is that it's been found and tagged. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Heh. @10:37, 28 August 2010 Guillaume2303 moved German Journal for Evidence and Quality in Healthcare ZEFQ to German Journal for Evidence and Quality in Healthcare (remove German acronym (not part of English title))
Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen
Thanks for taking care of the four incoming links.
OK then. So maybe the list is more than just a list of WP AJ-tagged typos/incorrect names/mispellings. I'm still left wondering why you bothered to post that long list to my talk, but, I guess it doesn't matter. I now have a deeper understanding of how WikiProject Academic Journals operates, and how complex its operations are. I'm ready to archive this thread, shortly. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Because, at the time I posted it, you were doing a lot of typo work in citations, so I figured you'd be interested in that list. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

International Review of Research in Mental Retardation

@Headbomb: I've never focused on doing just typo work in citations. Just working the general list. So, if I'm doing a lot, it's probably just because you've been doing a lot of tagging redirects. Back at you with one more thing. I just cleared the four pages that were linking to "Mental Retardation" (a redirect with a retarded page history, LOL). One of them was linking to part of a journal title. I fixed it to link to the full journal title (a red link). Searching for International Review of Research in Mental Retardation I found a dozen mentions. But "what links here" shows that the redirect I created is the only mainspace link. There are four WikiProject Academic Journals pages mentioning the title. I have no intention of starting an article about that journal. Do you have a preference as to whether I should redlink it to encourage someone else to start an article (the more red links the more demand) or just leave it for WikiProject Academic Journals to identify the journals in most need of having articles started. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I got no personal preferences for citations. If the other citations link the journal, I usually link. If not, I don't bother. Anything in the main text I do link when possible though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Intermediate public transport

Thanks for catching this one. Can you ping me again when you finish opening the merge discussion? Happy to throw in my +1. -- asilvering (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering: I never did get around to that, before a merge-patrol editor removed the template. I just cleaned up the articles Intermediate public transport, Paratransit, and Demand-responsive transport, making them circularly redirect to each other. I guess they are what they are; there seem to be differences in usage between India and the United States. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
No big deal, I suppose. If it ends up being more of a problem, we can always deal with it then. -- asilvering (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Just an FYI

Hi Wbm1058,

It's been a while! I saw your statement at the arbcom case request, especially this part: In the currently longest running RM, open a whopping 116 days and counting, I see two "Notes to closer", the second one pointing to two other discussions, one of which was endorsed, and one of which was overturned – both in favor of the naming convention that B2C supports. I read this as a not-too-subtle threat that any close that doesn't go his way will be taken to move review. A quick glance at that discussion, where the request has plenty of opposition, gives me the initial impression that it should close as no consensus, which would result in the page title remaining the same. But any potential closing administrator should realize that the next step will be another tendentious discussion at "move review", where the closing admin risks the embarrassment of watching their close get overturned.

I'm sorry you read it this way. It was not a threat at all, but rather just an FYI for any potential closer to be aware of what happened in those other cases, review them if they desire, and perhaps reflect on that in their closing. My thought was that someone who closed with the knowledge of what happened in those other cases might have more insight into the underlying issues than the same person would without reviewing those other cases. That's all. Although I did open one NCROY-related MR recently, others have opened all the others (some several), and while I won't open any more MRs myself, I fully expect others will. That's not a threat; it's a prediction.

I hope this clarifies my intent there. Thanks. --В²C ☎ 18:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Noted that the case request Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions was declined by the Committee on 19 May 2024. Regarding A quick glance at that discussion, where the request has plenty of opposition, gives me the initial impression that it should close as no consensus, which would result in the page title remaining the same. But any potential closing administrator should realize that the next step will be another tendentious discussion at "move review", where the closing admin risks the embarrassment of watching their close get overturned. That had a non-admin closure a couple days later (at 02:01, 13 May 2024) in favour of Move. That non-admin obviously got the message.
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Titles of European monarchs was added to {{Centralized discussion}} on 23 June 2024, and removed on 12 August 2024. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Closure requests#Titles of European monarchs feels like a bigger train wreck than even X. Labor Day is tomorrow; I need a break. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Titles of European monarchs closed by a non-admin on 26 September 2024 as a "partial consensus". Sigh. Just seems a surface-level analysis. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Redirects

Regarding Dafing, that was clearly a mistake on my part. Regarding "Turkish military suicide", I moved the page because I thought that title was incorrect per AT. I have now removed the bolded text and copy-edited the article a bit. The single section heading was unnecessary since this is currently a stub. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

WPA

Thank you for correcting my mistake. And yes, I do look at articles before I tag their redirects. If you'll look, I also tagged the redirect Works Project Administration, which is an incorrect name. I likely had both windows open at the same time when I made the error. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that one, too. It's a mash-up of the two valid names. 145 pages link to that, and need to be sorted as to which name should be used in context. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I've never seen your incorrect links report before. Thanks for sharing. I might help clean up some of them if I need a light maintenance task to work on. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Reverted your edit

Sorry, reverted your edit at Botswanan, now it redirects to Motswana. A handful of sources call it Motswana singular with Batswana plural, and more. Botswanan is not a real formal word, and just because wikitonary says it exists does not mean it does. Should redirect to motswana [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] 48JCL 01:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The result of the discussion I closed @ 18:38, 2 August 2024 was disambiguate. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

On my 'broken' revert

Hi,

This is what the page looked like before my revert. The image and some other things were broken by an IP user. I missed that you also made a non-breaking edit in the part that I reverted. Apologies for that.

Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk me) 17:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

"Tone (color theory)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Tone (color theory) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 23 § Tone (color theory) until a consensus is reached. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Finally closed 12 August 2024. Of course the redirect I created on 27 January 2022 was kept, and Tone (color) was re-targeted to the same article. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for repairing my circular redirect. Sometimes I forget. Scorpions1325 (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Cross-namespace redirects

Deep gratitude

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?! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 05:06, 24 December 2013 (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)

Redirects from namespace 1 to namespace 0

SELECT concat( "*[[Talk:", p.page_title, "]] redirects to [[:", r.rd_title, "]]" )
FROM redirect r
INNER JOIN page p ON p.page_id = r.rd_from
WHERE p.page_namespace = 1
AND   r.rd_namespace = 0
ORDER by page_title;

Making a table

I see that Wikipedia:Database reports/Cross-namespace redirects facilitated categorization of cross-namespace redirects from (Main) to any other namespace, a decade ago.
I'm using User:Largoplazo/WP Redirects, created April 2012, as my template for creating database reports. That report listed three cross-namespace redirects:

T: prefix redirects – wbm1058 (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Cross-namespace redirects [ edit ]
Namespace →
↑ 		0
Main 		1
Talk 		2
User 		3
talk 		4
WP 		5
WT 		10
{{ }} 		12
Help 		14
Cat 		100
Portal 		118
Draft
0 (Main) 11 0 0 855 0 268 785 25034 627 0
1 Talk 2742 27
2 User 106031 2285
3 User talk 285 5846
4 Wikipedia 2511 1694 42
5 WT 28604 62
10 Template 860 1243
12 Help 2 0 5 0 348 0 37 1 0 0
100 Portal 32 0 1 0 843 2 89 1 0 0
118 Draft 198473 5 1050
126 MOS 2 0 0 0 2195 2 1 2 0 0 0
Notes:
1 WP:R2 applies to redirects (apart from shortcuts) from the main namespace to any other namespace except the Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help: and Portal: namespaces.
2 Talk subpage-to-mainspace redirects only. Talk-to-mainspace redirects, except subpages, are patrolled.

See also: Redirects in Category: namespace – wbm1058 (talk) 12:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Wbm1058/Cross-namespace redirects is now in User:wbm1058 § Redirects and is shaping up nicely, so time to archive this old thread. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

What a long process it's been, just to get a full quorum for the initial committee seated. They are still scrutinizing the votes for the second Election. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Wow. Just checked in to find the status of this, and found that the special election only filled one seat, leaving eight (8)! seats still vacant. That election wasn't really so special. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
The m:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee is open for business (so far, just two Cases). They declined "Arabic Wikipedia admins against the Levantine Arabic Incubator Wikipedia", and accepted "Missbrauch von Adminfunktionen im deutschsprachigen Wiktionary", on 15 November 2024. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:58, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

What are you whining about while changing AnomieBOT-created en-dash redirects?

I see you recently decided to edit-summary ping me to claim that "we don't avoid redirects from bad titles" and the bot somehow "making extra work for [you]" with its "stupid creations". You also inexplicably deleted User:AnomieBOT/Auto-G8 from the pages. Perhaps you should have brought your concern to AnomieBOT's talk page, with justification for your assertion that we somehow don't avoid double redirects for certain "bad" titles and whether this work of yours is something community-supported or just something you decided to do on your own, instead of notification-spamming me. You might also want to ping User:CFA who created the en-dash-titled redirects you also criticized as "stupid" after a request at WP:AFC/R. Anomie⚔ 17:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Anomie: you're populating Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked misspellings, which is one of the reports I work to keep clean. I mean, what the point of all those damn tags if they aren't used to do something useful? User:CFA could make themselves more useful by helping me clear that report. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Seems to me that that database report could usefully exclude links from redirects that target the same page as the misspelling redirect to avoid exactly the situation you're complaining about regarding the tracking of other redirects that depend on the misspelling redirect. Or if that's too expensive or complex, it could probably exclude any p2.page_is_redirect = 1 without missing much of anything important. Anomie⚔ 18:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Anomie, Can you fork this query and modify it to show me what you're suggesting? Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Here you go: quarry:query/84585. Anomie⚔ 23:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
What do you want me to do about this? Should I avoid accepting redirects at WP:AFC/R that use em or en dashes? Or is there another issue? These seemed like unproblematic requests. C F A 💬 23:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
If Whitney Houston - Live - Her Greatest Performances is a legitimate {{R with possibilities}}, an not an {{R from incorrect punctuation}} then it should be tagged as such. But I don't see how that article would not be a content fork. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 Fixed by enhancing the SQL to work-around the bot as Anomie suggested. Finally. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

"Boy's games and toys and girl's games and toys" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Boy's games and toys and girl's games and toys has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 20 § Boy's games and toys and girl's games and toys until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 21:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

RM

I see you closed this, but RMs are supposed to last at least 7 days.VR (Please ping on reply) 13:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Vice regent: RM is not really designed for dealing with {{current}} events. If you don't feel the term "Assassination" is appropriate for the article title, I suggest focusing your efforts on removing the word "assassinated" from the lead sentence. The title should simply reflect what the article's lead says. Feel free to open or participate in a discussion about that on the talk page. After the {{current}} template comes off the article, it may then be appropriate to start another RM. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
I have never heard this opinion before. Is there anywhere in policy that discourages RMs for pages with the "current" template? VR (Please ping on reply) 13:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
@Vice regent: There's no hard rules here; just use some common sense. I see there's an RM at Talk:2024 Haret Hreik airstrike#Requested move 30 July 2024, where under discussion is the specificity of the location (Haret Hreik or Beirut) and whether to call the event an "airstrike" or "attack". I can't think of any offensive airstrike that wouldn't be considered an attack. I suppose there's room for arguing it was a "defensive" airstrike. The word "attack" occurs over 30 times in the article, including its {{short description}}, so clearly there are good grounds for the request. I only see eight occurrences of "airstrike" in that article. Note that when there is doubt, we should swiftly move away from "assassination", with no need to wait 7 days, in recent events where facts remain in doubt. There's also a section heading Assassination of Ismail Haniyeh § Assassination which is consistent with the article title. I think it's bass-ackwards to first argue for a title change on current-event articles, and only then after the page moves, alter the content to reflect the title. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Fixing citation/reference errors in translated foreign sources

Prekmurje Slovene#Bibliography; Prekmurje Slovene#References

Hi! Errors are in the sections References and Bibliography. Doncsecztalk 10:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Someone else helped, and I think I finished, based on what I found for the ISBN on Google Books. That reference didn't have any authors, but I used the editors in lieu. {{sfn}} doesn't work with the title in the first parameter, but it does with editors. Caveat, I don't know the language. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The Head of St John the Baptist (Bellini)

I got a chuckle out of your edit summary, and I have to agree it is ridiculous for editors to copy over material like that as seen here from another language Wiki, without bothering to translate the cites or include the targets for the cites. Anyway, just wanted to let you know that after some deep dive searching, I found all the refs at it:Testa del Battista, where the material originated from, and all the cites have been tidied up. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway: Thanks! See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 29#Template:Cita. – wbm1058 (talk) 09:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Blockquote error

Do you have any idea why there is a need to specify 1= on that page? I've literally in all my editing time never seen that and it's not on the parameters list for template:blockquote. Ogress 18:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's a real "gotcha" kind of thing. There's an equals sign lurking inside the text of that template parameter: Bnei Ma'araba (=The people of the Land of Israel)
Equals signs inside templates are used for named parameters. So to be on the safe side, use 1= to "name the parameter" when doing semi-automated edits like that. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! Also, I wish it was a semi-automated edit. I don't use any bots or the like, just raw autism.

Please re-cap

Journal articles are subject to MOS:TITLECAPS. Capitalization Expert (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

"When Contact Changes Minds" – a discredited journal article, one of those extremely rare titles where reliable sources nearly universally use sentence case, but Wikipedia's manual-of-style calls for caps (Title Case). Seems the MOS authoritarians have resorted to skirting the edges of the spirit of Wikipedia's sock-puppet rules to push their way. If I had half a dozen guesses, among them I'd probably guess who you are. Maybe if I were to make contact with you at a Wiki conference, I might change my mind about you. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Nine years! wbm1058 (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Happy birthday to you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amogelang22 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Could I have advice please?

At the article for Sreeleela, new editor Amyousufakon is adding a Facebook page that is 1 day old, has 1 friend and 5 followers. The description also states they are a 'digital content creator'. I've reverted 3 times with an explanation and left messages on their talk page but to no avail.

It could be her FB page, but I've serious doubts. I was trying to avoid the Admin noticeboards as it seems pretty trivial for that? What would you suggest? Thank you. Knitsey (talk) 11:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided #10: Social networking sites (such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, and TikTok), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Facebook Groups), Usenet newsgroups or email lists. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
That's why I reverted the first edit as they were trying to use it for a reference for a partner.
I've sometimes seen the external links contain links to Instagram etc, for actors, Influencer, and singers.
Thank you for sorting it out. Knitsey (talk) 12:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

A fox for you!

Thank you for pointing out my mistake on the London, United States redirect. I'm still getting back into the groove of editing after a break and I really do appreciate being called out for errors or missteps as I get back into things. It makes me a better editor/reviewer and it makes our shared goal of creating an encyclopedia a little closer. Just wanted to recognize you and if you find me out of line or making silly mistakes again please ping me and let me know.

Dr vulpes (Talk) 07:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Emotikon/Enotikon

See Hanlon's razor or the 'cock-up theory of history: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". I misread an n for an m. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

You don't win friends and influence people by telling them they're stupid. This is frustrating for me because cleaning up after stupidity (smart people making stupid edits or page moves) has pretty much become my full-time job on Wikipedia. You might reflect on why you didn't understand my edit until another editor reverted you, thankfully saving me from getting into an edit war. {{Confused}} editors blowing right past hatnotes warning them "Not to be confused with"... sigh. wbm1058 (talk) 12:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 12#Notional-functional syllabus

I'm a bit...uneasy about your close of Notional-functional syllabus. "Unmerging" the content was never suggested as an outcome, nor do I feel it to be the correct one. Rather than unmerging, why not re-add the content that was removed from the target in 2016? That seems to be better than restoring a one-source permastub. Also, I don't like your phrasing of proper deletion discussion, which makes it sound like RfD is not a proper deletion venue. Can you please back out of your closure, and if you think "unmerging" is the correct course of action, instead leave it as a !vote? I'd like to then respond with my own thoughts on the matter. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 22:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

OK. WP:RKEEP – redirect with a potentially useful page history, or an edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete: nutshell: Pages that have been merged to other articles should almost never be deleted, since our copyright requires all authors to be publicly credited).
Administrator instructions: Do not delete redirs with relevant history; histmerge or move.
  • Option for pages which were merged is for redirect pages with significant history to be archived into a talk namespace, and a link to them put into an article's talk page. – wbm1058 (talk) 10:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Followup status: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 5#Notional-functional syllabus closed as no consensus – essentially keeping my original solution (close) intact. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Redirect listed at Redirects for discussion

A redirect or redirects you have created has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 26 § Misbehaviour until a consensus is reached. 142.180.11.62 (talk) 19:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I was pinged here because I created Misbehaviour @20:46, 15 July 2014 (←Redirected page to Behavior)
That redirect was just made to be consistent with the earlier-created American English Misbehavior
After multiple relists, result of the discussion was Disambiguate Misbehaviour. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Harold

Dear wbm1058,

Why did you have to be like a jerk to me? I really do NOT know how, I tried the best I can, you EXPECT perfection. I am not familiar with this type of stuff, I tried the best I could. You should know I did the effort to try.

You were like “Move to Tropical Storm Harold (2023)? (Requested move 28 October 2024): User:AwesomeAndEpicGamer, what part of "Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly" don't you understand. Follow instructions at Template:Requested move, please”

How hurtful to say this to someone who is not familiar with this stuff instead of willing to do fixes or to help out, very hurtful to me.

I TRIED the best I could.

AwesomeAndEpicGamer (talk) 15:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry. More specifically, Template:Requested move#Suppressing the signature or the section heading is helpful for solving your issue. You should realize there are hundreds of new editors like you floundering around, with dozens more arriving practically daily. Meanwhile, there is just me and maybe a handful of editors still around who know how to help you out. That dynamic tests the patience of the best of us. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Okay… well I did try my best for real though to make it perfect… and I apologize if I got panicky there.
AwesomeAndEpicGamer (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

On your new redirect

Hi, thanks for creating it. I would have if I knew how, but can no longer. I used a hack before, moving/renaming articles/redirects, but that is no longer available for some reason. So if you can point me to how you do it, then great! I think there's still some official process that I forget about, that may not create immediately...

I though nobody would care really or notice that the redirect didn't actually exist (sorry!), just take it as the one with the regular hyphen redirected there. But yes, it wasn't technically correct for the correct ndash variant. comp.arch (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Comp.arch: there ya go: User–machine interface. Just click on that red link, then edit and publish the page as another redirect to that topic. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Mav round robin

The reason that I did a round robin swap of Mav for MAV was so that the underlying deleted history of what is now the incoming redirect would not be mistaken for the history of the disambiguation page itself. BD2412 T 23:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Head Chef (disambiguation)

Notice

The article Head Chef (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic redirect points to an article with a hatnote to the only other use.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wbm1058/Archive_12&oldid=1264615296"