User talk:Wbm1058/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

"The End Is Nigh"

Just wanted to let you know that what happened Talk:The End Is Nigh was the result of a semi-automated page move process that creates several pages automatically and there is a fair amount of cleanup to be done afterwards. I simply forgot one step for that talk page. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Revision history – wbm1058 (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Fosroc

Information icon Hello, Wbm1058. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Fosroc, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Fosroc

Hello, Wbm1058. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Fosroc".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 03:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Gems in neglected articles

WMB.. I would appreciate it if you take a look at my three paragraph talk page where, as a new editor, I have outlined some initial impressions. PS your talk and user page is fascinating! to me in terms of learning about the platform. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Just looking again at your three-section talk page as it stood on 30 October 2022.
Oh my. You posted a Wikipedia Exit Letter on January 28, comparing ChatGPT with Wikipedia, and then were blocked on April 13 for using ChatGPT to post a statement in an arbitration case. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

G6 talk page deletions

Why was deletion of Talk:Dusit Central Park considered housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup? From what I recall, it was first created in the course of a reverted page move, and later created as the talk page of the new article (by me) that replaced the redirect created from the reverted move. Am I remembering incorrectly? --Paul_012 (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

at 07:14, 1 June 2022 Paul 012 (you) moved page Talk:Dusit Central Park to Talk:Dusit Thani Bangkok over redirect: Since the content is about the now-demolished building, the new development should probably be a separate article.
Then at 07:31, 16 October 2022‎ you created a new article Dusit Central Park on top of the redirect left behind by that move – another topic with a different scope. This caused the talk page to populate Category:Articles with talk page redirects, a category I created via clever template coding. So I deleted Talk:Dusit Central Park as you did not create a new talk page on top of the redirect to Talk:Dusit Thani Bangkok. Feel free to create a talk page for the article you created on 16 October 2022‎. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Hmm. I thought I already un-redirected/created the talk page; I clearly forgot. Thanks for the explanation. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
PS Maybe adding a short edit summary explaining that the talk pages were redirecting elsewhere next time you go through the task will help stave off confusions like mine, as these deletions are likely to show up on watchlists of people watching the articles (but who might not have noticed the missing talk pages)? --Paul_012 (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I was asked about a similar deletion back in February 2021. Not bad if the question only comes up once every two years. I'll think about how to tersely explain in the deletion summary. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
I've created a long list of articles with talk page redirects by making a database query. My initial query found 2828 items, many of which weren't corralled into Category:Articles with talk page redirects because there's no {{R from move}} on them, most likely because they were moved long ago before that template was automatically dropped by page moves. I'll be gradually working through these to resolve them. Many, but far from all, will be fixed by page deletions. Here are some examples of some of the first of such deletions, you can click on the links to see the deletion summary I left. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

After making this my big project for the better part of the first four months of 2023, I've culled this list down from ~2800 pages to under two dozen. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

RM close at Casket

I was rather amazed to see this argument in your close:

"Arguments this article is primary topic for casket fall flat when, even after this RM has run for a week editors still allow links from Richie Ashburn, Orangeville, Illinois, and Paul Bearer (LOL), among others. – "
- where on earth do you get the idea it is the responsibility of participants in a RM discussion to clean up all the incoming links? There is absolutely nothing in policy about this, and it seems a very unrealistic expectation. Prior to the move discussion this was a badly neglected and pretty rubbishy stub with no regular editors (my only contribution was this, ten years ago). During a RM discussion is the worst time to start adjusting incoming links, as they may well need changing all over again afterwards. I see you are a regular at RM closes; it is extremely important that such editors do not start making policy up. I'm minded to appeal the close decision, as there wasn't anything much else in it. Johnbod (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
@Johnbod: no, it was my responsibility as the closing administrator, per Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Cleaning up after the move, to fix mistargeted wikilinks, which I did, with help from at least one other editor. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
But what did your close, with the comment that "Arguments this article is primary topic for casket fall flat when, even after this RM has run for a week editors still allow links from ..." mean, if not that it is the responsibility of participants in a RM discussion to clean up all the incoming links, and that failure to do so make their arguments "fall flat"? (my bold) There is no basis for this in policy. Johnbod (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
WP:Disambiguation#Is there a primary topic? says "A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." Primary-topic is applied on a worldwide basis, not just in a subset of English-speaking countries. Before I close any RM where primary-topic status is under discussion, I check "what links here" to confirm the primary-topic claim. This case was an easy close because the claim obviously did not hold up. Per my relevant contributions history I had to "Disambiguate Casket to Coffin" 15 times, and "Disambiguate Casket to Casket (decorative box)" only 9 times. As I said, though, I had help, so there were actually more than 15. When a term is declared ambiguous, it usually gets prompt attention from Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links if people monitoring the RM status haven't already taken care of it. Keeping the primary topic means that incorrect links to the decorative box remain in place for months as editors regard their existence as a virtual impossibility. Had these 15+ bad links been fixed before the RM was opened, and someone had committed to monitoring "links here" to catch new bad links, then the case for the decorative boxes being primary topic would have at least had a better chance at getting a consensus.
No arguments were made that the decorative boxes have greater long-term significance than coffins. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of KSRTC (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 KSRTC (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) 15:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I've restored this per my reasons at Talk:KSRTC#Edit-warring over the primary topic. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Proastiakos Thessaloniki

Greetings, sir; apologies, I'm used to supporting name changes to articles rather than suggesting them... I do try to read all T&C's regarding Templates procedures, but I messed up this time. As for the name Thessalonica Suburban Railway rather than Thessaloniki Suburban Railway, it seems a glitch was responsible as I had to change it once before but did not notice until you pointed it out... never the less, thank you for pointing this out ✠ Emperor of Byzantium ✠ (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Signpost pages

What was the actual deal with Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-09-12/News and Notes and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-12-13/News and notes? I looked at the section in your talk page archives, but I cannot really figure out what was going on there. They seem to have been completely damnatio memoriae'd, and exist only as entries in the old Signpost modules: why did they have to be destroyed? jp×g 06:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Sigh. I got out of bed thinking about what I'd work on today and then you drop by to interrupt my agenda. Right, I dropped this down my personal memory hole as well, so now you're inducing my need to dig this out of my buried memory. User talk:Wbm1058/Archive 5#Signpost page deletions you made is the section in my talk page archives, and now I'm reading it to jog my memory. I also note you mentioned this at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Technical#Redirects, indices, etc which you neglected to tell me about here. wbm1058 (talk) 14:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
OK, to avoid unnecessary confusion I'll tell you that Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-09-12/News and Notes was created @23:41, 31 March 2016 and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-12-13/News and notes was created @16:12, 1 April 2016. The April 1 creation date indicates these were fake Signpost archives created as part of an April Fools joke that the community SNOW-deleted as an "obvious BLP violation in the name of humor" (the LP being Donald Trump). I deleted them to spare the time of a dozen or three editors voting in what surely would be another snowstorm. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

What in tarnation... I did think it was strange for someone to randomly CSD a 2006 article eleven years later. But I never would have guessed that someone had created them both retroactively in 2016. How goddamn goofy is that? Well, I guess that solves our mystery here. Thanks for helping shed light! jp×g 17:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Hazard data

This discussion is about my edits to 2023 Ohio train derailment.

Hello, I'm sure how useful the hazard data is for these chemicals. Stating that they're all flammable seems redundant now that they've been intentionally set on fire. Hazard classes for shipping are weird, mercury is treated as corrosive (it attacks aluminium) even though that's the last thing you'd worry about if you spilt a drum of the stuff. The question is whether we scare people by discussing the toxicity issues. Project Osprey (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Since this classification is what defines a "high hazard flammable train" in the previous section, this column in the table helps confirm what the earlier section says. I'd be more concerned about the possibility of Trump going there and inciting another riot there this week. It would be nice to read about which of these chemicals J. D. Vance was stirring up when he poked a stick in that creek bed and what the long-term effects of their presence in the creek are. People might be reassured to read about the previous biggest train wreck in Ohio, knowing that Miamisburg eventually got over that (i.e., not Chernobyl). – wbm1058 (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
The politics of this are, thankfully, none of my concern. I'm just keeping an eye on the chemistry. The hazards here aren't merely ones of flammability - most of those compounds are toxic or carcinogenic. Organochlorides don't burn well, so there wont just be CO2 and water vapour (or ~240 tons of HCl) coming out of that fire, the heat will make all sorts of stuff. Project Osprey (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Cedar Creek, Wisconsin

I am trying to figure out why this talk page was deleted. It has an article associated with it. -- Dolotta (talk) 02:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The article associated with it was Cedar Creek (Wisconsin) and editors shouldn't discuss the article about the unincorporated community at Talk:Cedar Creek (Wisconsin). – wbm1058 (talk) 03:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
OK, I found the talk page and moved it back. wbm1058 (talk) 04:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
See also the discussion above #G6 talk page deletions. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks a million. It just looked strange from my nonadmin viewpoint. -- Dolotta (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Hulme Hippodrome

Hiya could you please undelete the talkpage for Hulme Hippodrome? I see a deletion log action which reads: 

Deletion log 22:17  Wbm1058 talk contribs deleted page Talk:Hulme Hippodrome ‎(G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: new article started 06:17, 3 January 2014‎‎‎; deleting redirect)

Something odd is going on because Hulme Hippodrome exists and has done since 2010. Cheers, Mujinga (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mujinga:The page had just a single edit which I deleted, which was #REDIRECT Talk:Playhouse Theatre, Manchester.
I see no reason why that talk page should redirect to the talk page of a different article.
Feel free to create a new talk page for an article which has never had a real talk page since its 23:38, 19 September 2010 creation (sorry, I guess my copy-paste to the edit summary failed; hence the bad date which was from some other page move). Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Oh, I see that the InternetArchiveBot left a message on the wrong page because of that bad redirect. I just recovered the page by moving the InternetArchiveBot edit back there where it belongs. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

"JMI" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect JMI 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/2023 March 25 § JMI until a consensus is reached. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 10:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Add player

Plz add this player https://www.sofascore.com/player/sadek-abdellahelhadj/1384990 197.200.243.240 (talk) 13:03, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I replied at User talk:197.200.243.240. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Tear Me to Pieces

Is there any particular reason why you moved Tear Me to Pieces to Draft:Tear Me to Pieces before the move request took place for a full week? --Jax 0677 (talk) 07:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The bot listed this as malformed at 12:33, 1 April 2023 because "Tear Me To Pieces redirects to Story of the Year"
That happened after Onel5969 restored the redirect to the band because "zero sources"
At 03:28, 1 April 2023 you requested a history merge of Thetickman13's edits. Sorry I'd deleted those two edits, which I guess led to your confusion. I've just restored them.
Meanwhile I noticed that Thetickman13's version was a fork of the three-week older draft created by Chchcheckit
There are two issues here.
  1. the capitalization. I haven't seen any debate about this so treated your requested move as a technical request to fix the capitalization.
  2. whether this article should exist in mainspace, i.e. is it ready for prime time? This is obviously under contention.
So, I moved Chchcheckit's draft to your requested capitalization, and merged Thetickman13's edits to the draft.
You may object to the draftification of this, and if you do I'm willing to move the draft back over the redirect, to mainspace for you. But beware that may make this article subject to a formal deletion discussion. I suggest that you, or someone, double down on your efforts to cite at least one acceptable source for the article before you ask me to move it back to article space. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 12:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Reply - I just added three sources to the article. Can you please move this back to main space? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 Done – wbm1058 (talk) 15:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

merging

This discussion is about my edits to Prisoners of the 2019–2021 Chilean protests

Don't you think correcting the merge to tag would have been more appropriate than reverting it as if nothing happened? I made an innocent error by indicating the former name Bedivere (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@Bedivere: Sorry, I get annoyed with users of automated tools who don't check the tool's edits, and the developers of such tools who don't make them smart enough to not make such edits. In aggregate, they waste a lot of my time. There has already been a significant discussion about the article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prisoners of the Revolt. "If desired, a proper merge discussion can take place on the article's talk page." The last edit to Talk:Prisoners of the 2019–2021 Chilean protests was on 30 September 2021‎, when you moved the page, and the last edit to Talk:2019–2022 Chilean protests was on 27 December 2022, when you agreed with another editor about the timing of Estallido Social. I agree that the issue of how to arbitrarily decide whether Estallido Social ended in 2020, 2021, or 2022 can be avoided by simply calling it Estallido Social. That would also keep the title consistent with the Spanish wiki. If you had bothered to start a talk page discussion about the matter, I would have been more inclined to fix your merge templates. The main article is already some 129,000 bytes long so it's a good-sized article without a lot of room for further growth, but I agree it could do a better job of covering the highlights of the "Prisoners of the Revolt" in Wikipedia:Summary style. Feel free to just be bold and do that. Noting that the Spanish wiki has an article on the topic, I think the English wiki probably should too. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Destiny Christian Academy

Hi! No objection if you think the Nigerian school is notable, but it's definitely not currently being created in good faith: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/David Eribe is illustrative. I just got tired of paying whack-a-sock. Star Mississippi 01:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wildlife forensic science, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PCR.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I retargeted pcr. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Cartoon Wars Part II

Hello, Wbm1058,

You did some page moves and merges that resulted in quite a few broken redirects (see here). I couldn't discern where this content finally ended up so I deleted the broken redirects. If there is a suitable new target for these redirects, you can restore them and retarget them or let me know. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 20:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Work is still in progress. This is a big tangle to sort out, and properly history-merge. Please be patient. I could be another hour working on this, not sure. Hopefully all will seem clean when I'm done. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Well I think I'm finally done. More like over 3 hours ( wbm1058 (talk) 00:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

"annoying bunch of editors"

please refrain from directly insulting editors, as you did here. as an administrator you should know not to do this. this can cause people to leave wikipedia. you could've handled that merge another way instead of insulting the editors. i am aware i didn't handle that whole article situation the best, but i'm trying to be better. but insulting other editors is not civil, especially when you have more power over us. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 04:17, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the history merge for Hailey's On It!

I really appreciate it! And thanks to the merge, I was reminded, again, that I created the page in the first place back in July 2022 as a draft, which I had forgotten. Historyday01 (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Forms of energy

Template:Forms of energy has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Requested move/sandbox/doc

Template:Requested move/sandbox/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Q𝟤𝟪 21:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Scottywong case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 21, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Share Your Feedback: Leadership Development Plan

Hi Wbm1058,


The Leadership Development Working Group (LDWG) invites you to give feedback on the Leadership Development Plan, a practical resource for emerging and existing leaders across the Wikimedia movement who want to develop themselves and others. Your feedback is important to make this resource relevant and useful. We look forward to your general reactions, constructive feedback and ideas for improvement. You can give feedback through the survey, MS Forum, LDWG talk page or email at leadershipworkinggroup@wikimedia.org.


The review period closes on Sunday May 28, 2023.


Thank you!


Best, CCasares (WMF) (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that the LDWG is disbanding without implementating any part of the leadership development plan, and leaving it up to the disorganized leaderless community to figure out how to do the implementation of leadership development. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Avoided double redirects

Regarding 41 special, IMO it's best to categorize a redirect with one difference from another title, and link things together with {{R from avoided double redirect}}, then list multiple differences from the target title, even if there is no chance an article will ever be at the redirect title, because that's not the only reason to use that rcat. While I agree unlikely in this case, 41 Special could one day become a dab page (like 38 Special is currently) or redirects can get retargeted, and use of the avoided double redirect templates ensures redirects end up in the right place. If 41 Special became its own page or was retargeted, then 41 special would be retargeted appropriately. Cheers, Mdewman6 (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Why was my edit on Robert Downey Jr. reverted?

Answer please. ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 11:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Robet John Downey does not redirect to anywhere. I opted not to fix your typo because the father is a related topic, mentioned and linked from the second paragraph of the lead section, so mentioning him in the hatnote is redundant. You could make Robert John Downey redirect to the father instead. Even a two-item disambiguation would be better than imposing that annoyingly long hatnote on every reader. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Bob Fischer (philosopher)

Thanks; sorry if I was a bit grumpy in edit summaries. I was resistant to authority control templates when they first arrived (mostly because I couldn't work out what they were) and now that I've come around to them, the guidelines are pushing me to Wikidata instead! 'Back in my day'... Josh Milburn (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to make you clean up my incompletions

I got caught up in asking a broader question in front of a test audience. I'd be interested in any preliminary comment you might have on the subject. BusterD (talk) 14:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Template:R from unsuitable title

See also User talk:Wbm1058/Archive 10#Template:R for convenience

Redirects and article (re)naming

On my watch list I have the following which you made changes to: 26th Milestone: Revision history and Template:Mountain Course: Difference between revisions.

I completely do not understand (your edit summary and what has become of) the former example (and never have understood printworthy, etc), but FYI the article was renamed by a defiant CoI editor to promote the Isle of Man name; there was no need for disambiguation, as there was/is no other article. As you are admin, and if you can easily remove the Isle of Man bit, I will leave it to your discretion; I can give other examples, like this SEO admission not needing disambig. I knew these examples without searching, and there is a long history with this editor, some of which I will not provide publicly. My understanding and rationale is that where there is no need for disambiguation it should not be present. You can email me if necessary. Thank you.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Rocknrollmancer. You raise a number of points; I'll try to cover each.
My current project is to clear the pages which are flagged as linking to incorrect names. This is a task that nobody else had taken on until I got to it. There were over 1900 pages on the list when I started, and now I've just gotten it below 500. An example incorrect name is National Broadcasting Corporation. The correct name is National Broadcasting Company but almost nobody calls it that; they just call it NBC and people have forgotten what the letters stand for; thus I found and corrected dozens of National Broadcasting Corporation mislinks. British Broadcasting Company would be another example if there wasn't actually a company with that name!
I removed {{R from unsuitable title}} from 26th Milestone because "26th Milestone" is not incorrect. "25th Milestone" or "26th Kilometerstone" would be incorrect. This is a valid {{R from short name}} because "26th Milestone" is a shortened form of the more complete article title 26th Milestone, Isle of Man.
"{{R from unsuitable title}}" is a somewhat ambiguous template title which may be responsible for some of this mistagging. Can a title be correct, yet "unsuitable"? And how is "suitability" determined?
Pinging @Paine Ellsworth: that template's creator. Just looking at that template's history for the first time in a long time. I see that another editor changed it to a disambiguation back in February 2016, but then I reverted them because I didn't want to disambiguate the 180 pages that transcluded it. That was probably a mistake as now the issue's gotten worse. There are 321 transclusions at the moment. I'm thinking of taking this to WP:Redirects for discussion.
The WP:Article titles policy covers the criteria used to decide on an article title. There is often more than one appropriate title for an article. In that case, editors choose the best title by consensus. "Concision" says the title is no longer than necessary – that supports "26th Milestone". "Precision" and "Recognizability" say the title is unambiguous and recognizable. There are surely thousands or 26th milestones around the world, and few outside of the UK, or even the Isle of Man itself, would readily recognize the location of this milestone. Those criteria support the longer title 26th Milestone, Isle of Man. We have a process WP:Requested moves for conducting discussions to decide the best weight of these sometimes conflicting criteria. Feel free to start an RM discussion if you like.
I'm not keen on tagging conflict-of-interest editors and personally would just rather see the page titles resolved via the RM process.
I bypassed the redirects in the {{Mountain Course}} template so that the pages names in that template are shown in boldface when transcluded on the same page. For example, look at the bottom of 26th Milestone, Isle of Man and click "show" to expand the "Snaefell Mountain Course" navigation template. Note that 26th Milestone (Joey's) is shown in boldface, which it would not be if that template just linked to the 26th Milestone redirect.
Finally, yes, the "printworthy" templates are an obscure thing that almost nobody understands. Getting into that would be another long-winded discussion in itself, so, I'll pass on that and stop now. Hopefully I've addressed all your other concerns. Best, wbm1058 (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the ping, wbm1058! In the case of 26th Milestone I would argue that the shortened title is definitely unsuitable for the reasons you expressed above, although it could just as easily be tagged with {{R from ambiguous name}}. As to the question of unsuitable vs. incorrect, converting the redirect, {{R from unsuitable title}}, to a full rcat template has been a low-priority item on my to-do list. Under the circumstances I will probably just remove it from my list and forget about it. To include editor Rocknrollmancer, I agree that "26th Milestone" on its own just isn't enough; however, there might be better dabbing other than a comma-separated "Isle of Man" to be considered in any such move request. As for "printworthiness", or as I call it "printability", this essay explains it fairly well, I'd say. But then, I wrote that essay, so I could be wrong. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 19:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
ThanQ for your work and for the depth of response; I am pleased that there are people who sort out the difficulties.
AFAIK, there are only two 'Milestone(s)' in the Isle of Man which are nouns-proper (ie. with capitalised 'M') these being 26th Milestone and 11th Milestone (the latter's edit history shows changes by 11thmilestone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a sock account which was blocked (the master was soon unblocked, against my arguments). There is much, much more which I will not mention. Normally when written in prose it should be simply milestone. Where there are no such 'stones' or other permanent edifice (ferinstance, having been replaced by wooden boards) I prefer to use milemarker.
It therefore makes no sense that anyone would be searching for multiple-milestones located elsewhere by that exact name. Hypothetical arguments would be a non sequitur, as even if they existed in geography, would need to pass wiki-Notability. Do we have to include disambiguation, 'just in case'? No - any subsequent mentions would be addressed by hat or dab page. I do concur, however that it would be logical if the locations were standardised across all of the navigation varieties.
I will give it further thought, and I will peruse the essay later, @Paine Ellsworth:. Coincidentally, a large part of this started back in 2014 with a template editor nominating an Isle of Man template for discussion/deletion, complaining it was transcluded into too-few articles (IIRC), then set about prod/afd of actual (stub) articles, leaving holes in yet-another IoM navigation template, which in turn led to the creation of List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course to accommodate those places deleted, together with articles to achieve a fuller list. So, a massive amount of extra work created by that particular template editor. rgds, Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Followup on unsuitable titles

I see this template was created as a result of this discussion about talk pages of redirected pages. The idea was to to prevent the creation of a "bad title" or prevent moving an article into a similar bad title. Generally, I think we use WP:SALT to prevent the creation of a really bad title. This is different than the bar for saying we shouldn't even create links to a "bad" redirect to a good title. Above, I noted there were 321 transclusions. Now there's 319. I'll work on removing these or converting them to a more "suitable" {{Rcat}} template ;) – wbm1058 (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done Yeah! Phew — wbm1058 (talk) 04:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

WikiConference North America scholarship

Hello, Wbm1058. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

How is there not a concensus on merging New Right (UK) with Jonathan Bowden

only one person disagreed. StrongALPHA (talk) 15:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

And one person was noncommittal. You were the only strong support. A 1–1–1 vote doesn't really make for a consensus. Sorry, I got pinged to work on another page with a somewhat complicated history. I'll add my thoughts at Talk:Jonathan Bowden#Any opposition to merging the Wikipedia article on the New Right organization? soon. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
cool, i look forward to reading it. StrongALPHA (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
I am restoring Troy Southgate and Jonathan Bowden to the European New Right footer, for the simple reason that this child organisation of theirs is also in the list. StrongALPHA (talk) 10:01, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Update: The merge discussion on New Right (UK), which was opened in July, is still open, albeit stale. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Your recent comment

Been there myself : )

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012

Though I will say, and I'm sincere in this, not just some politician platitude nonsense, I really am humbled by every person who chose to support. And people said some very nice things during and afterwards.

I hope your experience was similar. - jc37 17:34, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Note

RfA is what it is. And because it's about people expressing personal opinion about trust (or at least it's "supposed" to be...), it can be a challenge to experience.

This is only my opinion, of course, but based upon long experience with RFA, (and for whatever it's worth), I think you did very well.

It's now in the hands of the bureaucrats. I trust they will sort everything out appropriately.

I hope you're having an awesome day : ) - jc37 00:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Gypsies

REDIRECTING Gypsies to Romani people is the same as REDIRECTING Niggers to Afroamerican. The new redirect also brings confusion to the interwikis, because all of them are about derogative names for Romani people. --Yasny Blümchenkaffee (talk) 08:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Per wikt:nigger, that word is mostly considered "offensive, ethnic slur, vulgar"
Per wikt:gypsy, that word is just "sometimes offensive", so these redirects are not "the same"
But, as I said, you don't need to convince just me, you need to form a superseding consensus at RfD to change the target of that redirect. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
I grew up listening to Gypsy Woman on AM radio, which makes it a word of affection, not a slur. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Request

Sir can you review this article KVN Productions ᵃʳᵘⁿ (talk) 05:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing that.

Talk page redirects strike again. lol

They're usually easy to spot if they happen after a move. Not sure how I didn't catch that one.

Thanks again : ) - jc37 17:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

"95th" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 95th 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/2023 September 14 § 95th until a consensus is reached. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks you for fixing the Mansur Abdulin vs Mansur Abdullin confusion. I just wanted to clarify that when I overwrote the redirect I was not trying to hide the article history (the editor who overwrite the original article clearly made an honest mistake due to the similar names and similarity in biographies) and because of that I made a note on the talkpage to give credit for the page histories to the original editors. I have even made a point of reminding other editors to give credit for the source of the translations (don't get confused by teh note on my talkapge about Qaysenov, I did not translate the russian article and Mccapra admitteed they didn't even compare the two properly before puttin the warning on my page)--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 16:23, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

That Girl Lay Lay

Hi Wbm, long time no speak and I hope you're doing well.

I'm afraid I have to say I respectfully disagree with your close at Talk:That Girl Lay Lay. Your assertion that "There is no consensus primary topic for That Girl Lay Lay, which means we must disambiguate that title" is incorrect. Per WP:RMCI When there is no consensus, we maintain the status quo, which has always been that the TV series is the primary topic for the title That Girl Lay Lay. That option was also favoured by a very slight majority in the no consensus discussion as well. So the close should have been for no action. And that is particularly so when another discussion earlier this year had a similar conclusion and took no action. Please could you reconsider? Thanks as ever  — Amakuru (talk) 22:32, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Amakuru. I don't closely follow changes to the closing instructions anymore, and note the stricter definition of "involved", which I hadn't noted earlier, with some concern. In this case, I'm truly "uninvolved" though. I had not heard of that girl or that TV series before I dropped in and found this RM at the bottom of the backlog. I do see "status quo" applying to whether that girl's name is her real or stage name; status quo is her real name and I did not move her biography page. Neither did I change the status quo base title of the TV series article. The only change made by my close was to add the requested parenthetical disambiguation. The closing instructions still say that "Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions." The increasingly prescriptive (perhaps over-prescriptive) RM closing instructions should not override other existing guidelines. The applicable guideline to follow here is WP:Primary topic: "A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." My closing opinion is that the TV series is no longer the highly likely—much more likely topic sought. In the disambiguation I did as part of my post-move cleanup, while I found that editors were for the most part getting the links correct, I did find that I needed to correct a few: #1, #2, #3. Keeping these links ambiguous ensures that they will be corrected in a timely manner by the dab patrol. Best, wbm1058 (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Ha, actually I wasn't aware of that change to INVOLVED myself either actually, even though it seems to have been added in 2019. That really seems overly prescriptive, and falls foul of the notion that we argue closes on their merits and not on the identity of the closer. Anyway, hopefully the practical wcfext isn't too onerous.
On That Girl Lay Lay, we all know what primary topic means, per your link above, and that was considered in yhe discussion. Yet I and many others on the discussion felt the primary topic remained the TV series. As closer, your job is to reflect the discussion and evidence presented, not to assert something different from the prevailing consesnsus based on your own reading of guidelines. We opposed the move of the TV series and we explained why it's still the primary topic. If you disagree with that then what you do is you cast your own vote saying "support". But to close the move in favour without there being a consensus to do so is not the way it works. I'll probably have to take this to move review if we can't come to an agreement, but hopefully it won't come to that. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Sigh. I'm regretting I took this on as I've ended up putting way more time into this than I anticipated. Counting votes, I have 4–4 which is unfortunately light participation given the length of time it was open (38 days). The last voter has all of four contributions in their edit history. Their rationale "No doesn’t make sense as it is different topics" is as weak as it gets given that all articles on Wikipedia cover different topics – no content forks. Another vote on your side is equally head-scratching. They oppose moving Alaya High → That Girl Lay Lay because "She is Just known as That Girl Lay Lay." Say what? If she is not known as Alaya High and is just known as That Girl Lay Lay, then why wouldn't you want to move to the name that she is "just known as"? This strikes me as more a support vote than an oppose vote. Discarding the unintelligible vote from the four-edit wonder and moving the "just known as" vote to the support column, my adjusted count is 5–2, which is looking more like a consensus, albeit a thin one.
Your argument that her actual name appears often enough, or more often, in sources is one against the second move; i.e. for keeping her bio at her real name. But the PT criteria expects it to be highly unlikely that someone will search for her bio using the search string "That Girl Lay Lay". I found sources in her bio that never mention the name "Alaya High" – surely someone whose first exposure to any writings about her was this article or this article will search for Lay Lay or That Girl Lay Lay to find her wiki bio.
Three of the four support votes explicitly say "Support 1st" – which is the move I made. In other words, my "There is no consensus primary topic" close could say "There is a consensus that there is no consensus primary topic". Seems kind of bureaucratic for me to reopen it, and raise the vote to 6–2, so that someone else can just come along and repeat my close. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Football squad player2/TemplateData

Template:Football squad player2/TemplateData has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 18:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Utah State Route 91 (disambiguation)

Notice

The article Utah State Route 91 (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.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Promille

Ref your reversion of my edit, I have opened a discussion at Talk:Per mille‎#Promille. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:04, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

‎2023 Rainbow Bridge bombing

Please reverse yourself and allow the rfd to run. This redirect was quite plausible; early news pieces did describe this as a car bomb, and it was initially treated as a terror attack. See the first source used to support the story at Portal:Current events/2023 November 22, for example. —Cryptic 10:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, no. A car crash resulted in a "bomb-like" explosion nearby the bridge; the bridge itself was not bombed. – wbm1058 (talk) 10:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
To DRV, then. —Cryptic 11:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Redirected talk pages

I finally got around to investigating the anomalies in User:Certes/Reports/Redirected talk pages but found that you'd fixed almost all of them already. Thank you! Perhaps it's better for me to leave this to an admin in future, as the best course is often simply to delete the redirect, whereas all I can do is overwrite it with a banner dumping its maintenance on a WikiProject I've no intention of joining. Certes (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Certes: brilliant minds think alike, see User:Wbm1058/Articles with talk page redirects. That list had over 2800 pages on it when I first created it nearly a year ago; it was a bear of a job to (nearly) clear it out. I was pleasantly surprised to find that somebody else was on the job when I went back there to work that queue again. Not surprised to find out that it was you.
Yes, it's been on the back of my mind to start giving more tasks to SDZeroBot so that these database query reports are run on a (more) frequent and regular basis.
No, the best course is for you to run for adminship. I would be happy to nominate you. My nominees have a perfect record of passing that test. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, that's a huge compliment. I'll give the acquisition of a mop the serious thought it deserves but my knee-jerk reaction is No for two reasons. Firstly, I'm doing a few useful jobs that others aren't and would have to give some of them up, as I don't have time for both that and the work expected of an admin. Secondly, I don't think I'd pass RfA. On the plus side, I'd probably have succeeded five or ten years ago, I've gained experience since then and Wikipedia needs new admins more than ever. However, I'm not a content creator, and sadly that has become grounds for disqualification. Certes (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
re: "not a content creator" – 84% of your edits are in mainspace – you have me beat... my percentage is only 71%. It feels to me like you've been around forever, because I see your work all the time, so I was a bit surprised to see you only became really active circa 2017. Right, seeing your "top ten" articles being mostly about numbers is not the greatest look. It would help smooth the way for your RfA if you could just demonstrate a minimum ability to write sourced content – though some "creators" will still oppose if you haven't joined their "Good Articles club". My "creation" wasn't actually started by myself. I took something that someone else started, which needed a lot of work, and improved it. Surely you've noticed something like that, a topic that interests you which you could transform into a really nice article? I hear you about "doing a few useful jobs that others aren't", so am I, and I know how every time I move away from my more mundane tasks that don't require special tools (spelling and capitalization corrections, bad hatnotes, {{error}}s, etc.) to work on more challenging and time-consuming programming and administrative tasks, the mundane-task backlog that I just cleared piles right back up on me. I was using that excuse myself back in 2014 and 2015, before I ran, to take my work up to the next level. wbm1058 (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
By "content creator" I meant "writes GAs from scratch" or at least from a stub or low quality start-class. I might manage that if necessary but I leave it to the many subject experts who do it better. I retired at the end of 2016 and was busy at work until then. Edits to my top ten are mainly reversions rather than original work, and there's nothing above C class. The list reflects articles that are either vandal magnets like 42 (number) or bookmarked by an IP-hopper for regular attack but not on many watchlists nor hit sufficiently often to get protected. I would occasionally find the admin tools useful but don't feel I can make a good case for them. If I may be frank, I had also been put off applying by the prospect of extensive opposition from an editor with whom I had a protracted and uncivil disagreement a few years ago. However, they are now banned from Wikipedia following an unrelated incident in which I was not involved, so it may be time to think again. Certes (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
One more thing: I might reasonably be expected to have already proven trustworthy with lesser privileges. Although I've been offered page mover etc. from time to time, I haven't really needed the hats often enough to justify requesting them. I'm not even autopatrolled, which causes some work at NPP as I regularly create dabs. (Redirects I create are now patrolled by bot.) Certes (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Your invitation to RfA is a huge honour but, after giving the matter due thought, I'm afraid it's a No. If the time ever comes when Wikipedia is so desperately short of admins that we experienced editors need to abandon our other tasks in favour of mopping then I might reconsider, but for the foreseeable future I can do far more good where I am. However, I am looking into other areas, such as starting a bot. (Imminent changes such as linktarget are going to break a lot of important reports which may lack maintainers.) I'm a competent coder and user of regexp etc. but setup seems very complicated, especially with the imminent GridEngine closure. I may be on the lookout for a mentor to hold my hand when programs which work fine locally fall over with an obscure error message on the servers. Certes (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Unblock request

Hi, wbm1058 - please see this discussion at Drmies UTP, and unblock that user or have another admin do it - doesn't matter. The user wants to register under his own name (validated ticket at VRT). I did advise him as to WP:COI. Thanks in advance. Atsme 💬 📧 18:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done – wbm1058 (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Christa Kohler

Please undelete Christa Kohler. Admins are generally not allowed to speedy-delete years-old redirects out of process and then English Wikipedia is not bound by the way other wikis choose to structure their articles. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Scooby-Doo. And I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for those meddling possibly out-of-process deletions. ( wbm1058 (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Eva Rittmeister

What a lousy shitty comment you left there. Playing favouritism when two minutes work would have disambiguated it. My estimation of you is through the floor. scope_creepTalk 18:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

@Scope creep: – I'm not the one playing favorites. See above. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Sorry for the sarcastic tone. Seems we have a working compromise at the Eva Rittmeister bio now. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Leroy Glover

I saw your edit summary. It never dawned on me before to check what links here for pages that didn't already exist. Thanks for the note.—Bagumba (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Whether whether or wether

Re this edit: Sorry, got tripped up by the homophony of wether and whether (and weather). Paradoctor (talk) 13:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wbm1058/Archive_11&oldid=1207868138"