User:BD2412/Archive 015

Archives By topic (prior to June 1, 2009): Articles-1st/Deletion-1st-2d/Law-1st-2d-3d-4th-5th Misc.-1st-2d-3d-4th/RfA-1st-2d-3d-4th/Tools-1st-2nd-3rd/Vandalism Dated (beginning June 1, 2009): 001-002-003-004-005-006-007-008-009-010-011-012-013-014-015 016-017-018-019-020-021-022-023-024-025-026-027-028-029-030 031-032-033-034-035-036-037-038-039-040-041-042-043-044-045 046-047-048-049-050-051-052-053-054-055-056-057 Dispute I wanted to make sure you were aware of the discussion at Talk:Military occupation of France#Dab page, since you previously edited the associated page. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 00:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC) Deletion review for Category:Pseudoscientists An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Pseudoscientists. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. This is a limited reconsideration of one element of the decision, not a call for a reversal of the entire renaming. Mangoe (talk) 01:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC) Thanks Thanks for cleaning up the incoming links to Doors. I was just getting to that myself. I'm glad I didn't get any more messages angrily pointing me to WP:FIXDABLINKS. It's a good "code of honor" for unilateral actors, but I wish it made an explicit exception for discussion closers. RM and RfD are backlogged already; we really don't need to add an extra burden on closers. Perhaps in turn the onus could be placed on the requester and/or supporters, though that could also chill discussion. --BDD (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC) My pleasure. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC) June 2014 The Super Disambiguator's Barnstar The Super Disambiguator's Barnstar is awarded to the winners of the Disambiguation pages with links monthly challenge, who have gone above and beyond to remove ambiguous links. Your achievment will be recorded at the Hall of Fame. This award is presented to BD2412, for successfully fixing 4457 links in the challenge of May 2014. Rcsprinter123 (gossip) @ 18:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC) Incomplete DYK nomination Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Minette (ore) at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 06:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC) Disambig links Hi BD2412, thanks for your contributions. How you solve that many disambig links under 1 minute? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC) Is there any particular minute to which you are referring? I generally use AWB. I have it loaded with the most likely solutions to the most common offenders (links like heavy metal, Spanish, battery, etc.), and can run through the list of all links to all of these pages, clicking all the fixes that are correct and adjusting those that are not. bd2412 T 13:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC) Thanks for providing me an idea. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC) Uh-oh. bd2412 T 16:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC) State Bar of Texas Dear BD 2412: User Lulaq and/or IP 209.133.55.244 has been adding what I contend is personal POV to the article on the State Bar of Texas that is not found in the material he cites. He/she reverts, claiming that his material is actually found in the source materials, which I believe is false. I'd appreciate your looking at that. Yours, Famspear (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC) (talk page stalker)I've removed several of the statements that were clearly not sourced (especially the WP:BLP violation at the end of the section). I also started a talk page discusssion that highlights the specific sections that were unsourced and what was needed plus left a note on the editors talk page. Based on their current sources, that section probably should be 1-2 sentences long. Removing the worst unsourced parts and pointing them to what's needed may help out somewhat. That entire section smells like an attack on the person mentioned at the though. Ravensfire (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC) Thanks, Ravensfire! bd2412 T 23:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC) COI RfC Hi BD, your name was mentioned over at the COI RFC (now withdrawn, or on hold). I see you didn't vote in the 4 main RfCs in November. Have you expressed an opinion on the recent COI questions, do you have a fixed position, and would you like to be one of the closers? - Dank (push to talk) 03:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC) Sorry, but I won't have the time to address an issue of this scope for at least a few weeks. bd2412 T 14:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC) Sure thing. If you find you do have time in the future, please feel free to jump in. - Dank (push to talk) 14:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC) Leaflet For Wikiproject Disambiguation At Wikimania 2014 Hi, I noticed that you took interest in getting a leaflet printed for Wikiproject Disambiguation at Wikimania 2014. However, you have not submitted it yet. If you want to have your leaflet displayed, then the submission deadline is 1st July 2014. Thanks. Kind regards, Adikhajuria (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC) Continental Motor Manufacturing Company Hi BD2412. Everyone but Wikipedia knows about a business called Continental Motor Manufacturing Company which I guess is the same as Wikipedia calls Continental Motors Company. I see you have made a number of edits to that article and I wondered if you would mind if I corrected the company's name. Of course that might be a mistake and that's why I first write to you. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC) Greetings! The correct method for requesting a page move is outlined at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC) Thankyou! I now find a reliable statement as follows "abbbreviated to Continental Motors Company in February 1916 . . . 2nd January 1917 incorporated in Virginia as Continental Motors Corporation". . . ahhh. I would be very pleased to email a scan of a couple of pages from this detailed source to anyone prepared to write up the info for the WP article, in the meantime I'm finding it hard enough to read the rest of The Bullnose and Flatnose Morris by Jarman and Barraclough. Thank you for your time and patience, (squirm). Eddaido (talk) 02:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC) Garbage genres discussion Hello. You're a past editor in the Garbage articles, would you mind giving your input on the latest discussion? Talk:Garbage_(band)#Genres. --Lpdte77 (talk) 01:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC) No thanks, I have only ever been an incidental editor of those articles. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC) Please help Please have a look at this and help if possible, I have no idea who to turn to with this so I'm trying to contact more experienced Wikipedians. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC) I'm afraid this is outside of my competency. bd2412 T 15:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC) Hey BD2412, thanks for bringing this up. I had seen this user posting the same message on other talk pages.[1] After your reply I checked what he actually wanted and I've removed that attack post.[2] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC) Thanks for letting me know. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC) A little help, please? Template_talk:US_Constitutional_Tax_Law Thanks. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC) Make Social identity a WP:Disambiguation page or not? Hey, BD2412. Several hours earlier today, after reading Sillyfolkboy's commentary in this section at the Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality talk page, I noticed that the Social identity link redirects to the Social identity theory article. I was surprised because there is also the Identity (social science) article, and "social identity" usually is not considered a theory (except for in the context of the social identity theory topic), but rather as something a person simply has. Given that there is a Identity (social science), Social identity theory, Self-concept and Personal identity article, topics that can all mean "social identity," it seems to me that the Social identity link should be a WP:Disambiguation page. I've temporarily put your talk page on my WP:Watchlist, so there is no need to ping me to this discussion if you reply. Flyer22 (talk) 03:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC) I think that it is more likely that the target is wrong, and that the primary topic of the term is Identity (social science) (or that Identity (social science) should be moved to Social identity). The theory is just a theory about the organization of that kind of identity, and both Self-concept and Personal identity seem like subtopics or tangentially related concepts, making this more suitable for dabconcept then disambiguation. bd2412 T 03:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC) Yeah, I was also thinking that this may be a WP:BROADCONCEPT matter, or that at least one or more aspects of it are a WP:BROADCONCEPT matter. What page do you think is the best page to start a discussion about this so that WP:Consensus may be achieved regarding it? Perhaps at Talk:Social identity, after removing the redirect that's there? Wherever we start a discussion about it for wider input, we should employ WP:TALKCENT. Flyer22 (talk) 03:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC) My friend, in the words of Meat Loaf, let me sleep on it, I'll give you an answer in the morning. bd2412 T 03:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC) LOL!! Okay. Flyer22 (talk) 03:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC) The more I think about it, the more I think that this should just point to Identity (social science). bd2412 T 19:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC) Given the message on the Social identity page, how do you think I should handle redirecting that page to the Identity (social science) article? I was simply going to redirect it there while pointing to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 13:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC) Redirected, as seen here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC) Sorry I lost track of the discussion - everything from before Wikimania is still a blur. I agree with the redirect. bd2412 T 18:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC) Thanks for explaining and for the support. I was brought back to this section because your user page had very recently popped up on my WP:Watchlist and I remembered why I had re-WP:Watchlisted your user page (by "re-WP:Watchlisted," I mean that I have put your user page on my WP:Watchlist twice or thrice). Flyer22 (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC) WP:INTDABLINK problem Please see the recent history of Typhoon Neoguri (2014). At least two users have reverted my edits to the hatnote. I'll try a nice post on the talk page, but I doubt it will do much good. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC) I will keep an eye on it. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC) While im not going to be removing any disambiguation links or doing anything to the disambiguation hatnotes and do not wish to open a can of worms. Wikipedia:Disambiguation including WP:INTDABLINK is only a Guideline and not a Policy like you have told two users.Jason Rees (talk) 11:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC) As far as I recall, we had a separate discussion on WP:INTDABLINK at one point, and found an uncontested consensus to make it a policy rather than a guideline, even though it remains on the WP:DAB page. However, the more important factor is that direct links to disambiguation pages seriously harm the efforts of disambiguators to fix errors, and we have numerous sub-projects directed towards fixing just these. Editors who revert these fixes are doing no more to help Wikipedia than editors who revert a link to a specific "John Smith" to instead point to the disambiguation page John Smith because the syntax looks neater. bd2412 T 12:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC) Removal of shared IP headers on talk pages? Hello. Just curious as to why you are removing the shared IP header templates on the talk pages of anonymous editors [3]. According to WP:USER, these sorts of "templates and notes left to indicate other users share the same IP address and/or to whom the IP is registered" are on the list of things that should not be removed from user talk pages. Regards, — Kralizec! (talk) 13:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC) This is as approved in this discussion: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 110#Bot blank and template really, really, really old IP talk pages. These are pages from which no edits have been made in the past five years (or more some have even had no edits for over ten years). IP addresses can be dynamic (and were more so just a few years ago), so we can't as a rule say that the IP address is still shared or registered as it was five years ago. Moreover, if no edits have been made from an IP address in five years, it's a safe bet that it's not accessible to the general public at all, and there is no point in having anything at all on the page. Removing the content from these pages then makes it easier to find relevant pages when searching the "what links here" for links that had previously had instances on that page. bd2412 T 13:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC) Thank you for the speedy reply. Please forgive my confusion, but your proposal at VPP was for when "no edits have been made by the IP within the last seven years" (emphasis yours), above you said five years, and glancing at the bot's most recent run, I see that the second to last blanked page [4] was for an IP that last edited 4 years 8 months ago [5]. So is it 7 years, 5 years, 4 years, or something else? If the stated goal is to reduce the number of unnecessary links to dab pages, perhaps the bot could just remove all of the ancient warnings (with their dab links), but leave the IP headers (which rarely link to dab pages) in place? Regards, — Kralizec! (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC) The proposal was seven years, although some supporters would have preferred even lower thresholds. That, however, was for having this done automatically by a bot (i.e. without even needing human supervision). I have actually been making these edits manually, assisted by AWB. I have seen other discussions where it has been suggested that any IP talk page that has been stale for more than six months should be blanked and templated. I don't much disagree with that. The list that I generated was actually of any IPs that didn't have any contribution in a year with a "201-" in the title, so it covered pages with edits made up to December 31, 2009. This being 2014, I'm not particularly concerned with blanking a page last edited four years and seven months ago. As for leaving the IP headers, Wikipedia is not a permanent record of the affiliations that a fairly random selection of IP pages had in the previous decade. If there have been no edits forthcoming from them, then there is no benefit to the encyclopedia in maintaining them at all. The benefit in removing them is that you can look at the "what links here" page even for the templates used on those pages and get a more accurate picture of pages relevant to current activity. The only template remaining on all of these pages will be a generic {{OW}}. bd2412 T 17:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC) AWAY I am attending Wikimania in London, and (ironically) will therefore be unable to edit until my return, August 12. Please try to have this project finished by the time I get back (but at the very least, don't break it). Cheers! bd2412 T 18:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC) Particulates In 2012, you participated in a discussion at Talk:Particulate (disambiguation). There is now a related proposal to move Particulates to Atmospheric particulate matter, and I thought you might like to participate in the discussion at Talk:Particulates. G. C. Hood (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC) Nomination of Philandry for deletion A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Philandry is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philandry until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Draft:Best Before Records Dear BD2412: Before you made the final edit to this draft, another editor copied it to mainspace, where it has continued to be improved. I'd like to do a history merge to put it back together. Would you mind reverting your edit so that there will be no overlapping changes? Thanks. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC) No problem. I reverted and went ahead and did the history merge. Please note that I am editing from the hotel computer of the Thistle City Barbican, apparently being the only Wikipedian here who doesn't have his own computer or device from which to edit. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC) Thanks! I didn't expect such a quick response after reading your "Status" message. Enjoy your trip! —Anne Delong (talk) 23:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC) Quantification Thanks for helping to disambiguate the links to Quantification! If I had thought of the number of those links, I wouldn't have split the original page. I probably should have learned how to use AWB before... - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC) And back again It sounds like you have come back exhausted from WikiMania. I hope this is because you had such a good time doing interesting and worthwhile things that you took yourself to your neuronal limit. And then you were jet lagged? You did make conflicting requests: "Please hang on until I get back" and "Please try to have this project finished by the time I get back". I'm sure you know that we haven't broken the project, least of all some particles. I'm looking forward to meeting your usual calm, wise, authoritative self in a day or two, hopefully. Some people say that it takes a day of recovery for every time zone crossed. That seemed an exaggeration when I was young. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC) Epitome https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Epitome&diff=621223021&oldid=620391078 m (BD2412 moved page Epitome (form) to Epitome: revert WP:BOLD but controversial move per WP:BRD; please obtain a consensus via WP:RM before undertaking controversial moves) Hello. Re the above, I'm twice puzzled: first, what is controversial about the move; and second, where may I find a copy of the disambiguation page the above move replaced..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC) I have moved the edit history to the Epitome (disambiguation) page. Any page move of a longstanding title that creates a large number of broken links is inherently controversial, and any editor may revert such a move if made without discussion. bd2412 T 18:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC) By "broken links", do you mean something different from redirects that would need updating..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC) I mean exactly that. A link that points to a disambiguation page is an error. Relative to the purpose of an encyclopedia, it is broken, just as much as a page that has any other wrong information. Please note that disambiguators are presently overwhelmed with a rising tide of such links, and errors created in this way may not end up getting fixed. bd2412 T 22:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC) In that case, I must've been distracted from updating the redirects, for which I apologize. Do you think that the use of "epitome" as referring to the shortened form is the most commonplace? My impression is that it's to label something as the best or a prime example of something. If so, perhaps Epitome should redirect to Epitome (disambiguation) or become the disambiguation page itself..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC) Use of "epitome" to label something as a prime example of something is dictionary use, not encyclopedic. I would venture that the form is the primary encyclopedic topic. However, since a base page title can't redirect to a disambiguation page (per WP:MALPLACED), the correct course of action would be to file a requested move, so that evidence for and against the move can be presented and considered, and a consensus determined by the community. bd2412 T 11:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC) I feel I should know this, but: if "Blah" was a word whose most common use was agreed to be more dictionary-like than encyclopedic, would that usually mean that [[Blah]] or a search for "Blah" would take the reader to [[Blah (disambiguation)]]..? If so, that's what I'll suggest in a requested move – unless you recommend something different..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC) The situation is not unheard of - Raison d'être is an example. However, I would be curious as to whether the incoming link to Epitome are directed towards the common noun sense, or to the form, which is a useful clue about what people think when they search for or link to this word in an encyclopedia. Moreover, I suspect that a if there are a lot of links intending the common noun sense, there may be a need for an encyclopedia article on the concept at issue. bd2412 T 22:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC) For now, I've added this use of "epitome" to the start of the disambiguation page (and also, as it's counter-intuitive, the pronunciation). Thanks for your input. Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC) Pause the particulates palaver? The whole threads around particulates seem to be getting in a bit of a mess. It is a tricky issue and lots of people seem to have strong opinions (including me) which never helps. I wonder if it would help to withdraw all proposals for change at the moment and see if we get some advice via Noticeboards#Editor_assistance. The discussions could continue to allow us to look at some possible options. I think that any proposal needs to look at the whole thing together and not as individual discussions. For example, if we move particulates back to atmospheric particle matter then it makes it harder for that to be the target for particulate etc. There are several other coherent proposals we could come up with but they need to all work together and would probably benefit from someone who has not been involved up to this point. What do you think?--NHSavage (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC) I'm not opposed to that. How would you propose we go about it? bd2412 T 21:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC) I'd do it like this. First withdraw all the proposals for changes on these pages. Then on a subpage of say particulate, let's try and formulate some options for this set of pages. Then invite people to discuss the relative merits of each and see if we can get to consensus (the ideal position). If we can't reach consensus, then ask for advice from Wikipedia:Editor_assistance to help avoid any disputes escalating. --NHSavage (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC) Yes, I think that's a good course of action. If the move request at Particulates is withdrawn, we can proceed with winding down the rest of the issues. bd2412 T 15:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC) (talk page stalker) I know nothing much about particles or particulates, and am about to have a wikibreak, but seem to have fallen into this discussion a couple of times as a disambiguator etc, so will make a few comments here (feel free to copy them to whatever page the discussion is held at): Every related article must have the title which is the best title for that article, using disambiguation if necessary. Each of Particle, Particle (disambiguation), Particulate, Particulate (disambiguation), Particulates, and Particulates (disambiguation) (and whatever else seems necessary - Particulate matter for a start) must exist as articles, dab pages or sensible redirects Readers starting any of those 6 or more entry points must be led to all the relevant material, by whatever combination of dab pages, redirects, and hatnotes is needed It's quite acceptable for Foo 1 to redirect to Foo 2 and for Foo 1 (disambiguation) to exist and be linked by a {{redirect}} hatnote on Foo 2 (ie the topic called "Foo 2" is also known as "Foo 1", and is the primary topic for "Foo 1" although there are other topics at that title which need disambiguation. But it's not acceptable for Foo 1 to redirect to Foo 1 (disambiguation): in that case the dab page needs to be at Foo 1 with a redirect from Foo 1 (disambiguation) (ie if there is no primary topic, then the dab page goes at the base name - with a redirect, of course) Probably all stating the obvious, but seemed worth re-stating as the framework within which those who know and care about particles and particulates should be discussing things. Good luck. PamD 16:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC) Yes, but there is a deeper issue where there is some relationship between all of the terms. We could have a disambiguation page at Elephant merely listing African elephant and Indian elephant, but there is a concept of "elephant" that encompasses both of these senses. We still have Elephant (disambiguation) because there are meanings not directly related to the kinds of elephant. bd2412 T 17:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC) That is a nice example of where you need a disambiguation page and a primary topic. Thanks.--NHSavage (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC) Some suggestions to think about In my sandbox, I have tried to outline what I think that possible ways of dealing with this are: User:NHSavage/sandbox/particulates. --NHSavage (talk) 18:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC) Option 3a would run afoul of WP:MALPLACED. If there is to be a disambiguation page, the "Foo" title can't redirect to the "Foo (disambiguation)" title. bd2412 T 19:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC) Thank you for explaining that. I have added option 3c as a result.--NHSavage (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Special Barnstar Thanks a lot for beautifying both en.wiki and en.wikiquote. You are amazing! OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC) Thanks! bd2412 T 15:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC) Something in the way ... Hi BD2412. You might want to make sure the song article is indeed titled "Something (Beatles song)" first … Right now, "Something" still takes us to the Harrison song, and I've seen one or two users reverting your recent change(s). Cheers, JG66 (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC) Based on the trajectory of the current move discussion, it won't last. I would rather not shock the WP:DPL count with a sharp spike that can be dealt with in advance. In any case, this is a necessary exercise, as there are links to Something that do not intend the Beatles song, and this is the only way to find and fix those. bd2412 T 17:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC) Aha, fair point. JG66 (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC) Something I did not put in the request, and I am not an administrator (as you are). Why are you delegating work to me? - Hoops gza (talk) 02:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC) I have already fixed all of the incoming links, which was quite an effort; if you are going to unfix them now, surely you can refix them when the page move is made next week. bd2412 T 02:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC) The request is not closed. Why did you change the links before consensus was reached? - Hoops gza (talk) 03:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC) I have mad experience with these things. Also, since the links continue to redirect to the current target article, the fix doesn't cause any problems, but it does make it easy to see links to Something that are intended for any of the various other meanings of the word. See the discussion immediately above. bd2412 T 03:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC) I will be away for family matters until September 2. Please hold all calls until then. Try and get all the disambiguation links fixed before I get back, but at least, don't break anything. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC) Take care. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC) Okay, so you're away. Are we supposed to find the disambiguation links you removed and make a lot of repairs, or is this one just an isolation accident? I added the deleted information back at ICNB. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC) Talk page stalker comment, User:Sminthopsis84, what accident are you talking about? As far as I can see BD2412 has not edited ICNB at all. You can see, ICNB doesn't redirect to anything, so there shouldn't be a template on any page saying that ICNB redirects there. Removing a template that says that is the right thing. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 20:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC) The edit I pointed to is on International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria. At one time, ICNB redirected there, as can be seen in the history. The redirect that BD2412 removed said ""ICNB" redirects here. For the Portuguese government agency, see Institute for Nature Conservation and Biodiversity". It would have been helpful to look into that a bit in order to discover that someone earlier had failed to add Institute for Nature Conservation and Biodiversity to the disambiguation page ICNB. That unexpected connection is something that someone had helpfully added to wikipedia and was in danger of being lost forever. I have now fixed that. I was rather surprised to see BD2412 apparently asking other people to clean up after a mass removal they had done, by saying "Try and get all the disambiguation links fixed before I get back". If that was in fact what was being asked, I consider it rather inconsiderate to zap information without adequate checking. There might not be enough editors watching the affected pages with their brains at the ready. I don't know BD2412 well, but hope that that possible reading of their statement here was not, in fact, the intended reading. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC) I think you totally misunderstood the intent of BD2412's comment. He was referring to the (approximately) 200,000 links to disambiguation pages that need to be repaired. Suggesting that we would fix them all over a long weekend was a JOKE. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC) Thank you for explaining. Sorry for misunderstanding. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC) Thanks to those who clarified things here. Yes, I meant all 200,000 disambiguation links. The issue with ICNB traces to User:Aleksa Lukic making it into a disambiguation page, without including the term to which the link already pointed, which is a rather odd thing to do. bd2412 T 03:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Unnamed lake I was just wondering why Unnamed lake redirects to Open problem? The reason I ask is that there are 72 articles, mostly in Canada, about rivers that link to Unnamed lake. It seems the box used automatically links the term used in the line "source =". I'm in the process of changing them to "Lake unnamed" anyway. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 03:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC) So far as I recall, these used to say "unknown", which generated a link to the disambiguation page Unknown, which is mostly concerned with films and other media topics that are actually named "Unknown", and not at all helpful in determining the meaning of "unknown" in the context of a source lake. Redirecting the page to open problem seemed to be the most accurate resolution, since in the context of Wikipedia, these unknown lakes are indeed an open problem. bd2412 T 04:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC) Ah. I thought that "unnamed lake" had some sort of math or scientific concept. Now I see someone has changed unnamed lake and I changed them all. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 15:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC) Two letter disambiguation I noticed the work you've been doing on this as some of the pages are on my watchlist, noticed they were introducing a relatively minor case of over-categorisation, and thought of a fix: would a template be better, like {{disambiguation}}, or more exactly like {{Letter disambiguation}} (without the navigation box)? This would replace that template and so put them in the correct category while allowing for a more precise description.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 18:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC) Greetings! The discussion preceding these additions was (and is) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#AA/aa - ZZ/zz disambiguations. That would be the place to make this proposal. bd2412 T 18:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC) Parachutes Hi - would you mind taking another look at your !vote at Talk:Parachutes? I posted pageview stats that show that this plural is not the same as Chairs (or for that matter, Dolls or Pianos, for which I support a move). In fact, more people visit the Parachutes album page than go to the Parachute device page. That makes it much more like the other examples at WP:PLURALPT, such as Windows and Bookends. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 14:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC) Hello again - I was just wondering what you made of the usage argument I put forward at the Bookends page. Dohn joe (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC) Cereus disambiguation Please see Talk:Cereus_(disambiguation). Peter coxhead (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC) Done, cheers! bd2412 T 14:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC) Wikimedia DC's Wonderful meetups Wikimedia DC's Upcoming meetups Thursday, September 11: “Wikipedia and YOUR History: Taking Control of the Internet, One Article at a Time!” A presentation at the Laurel Historical Society about how you can help verify, validate, and edit the information that is on the front line of local history. Laurel Pool Room, 9th and Main Street in Laurel, MD. 7 PM. Wednesday, September 17: WikiSalon Come for the pizza, stay for the conversation. 7 PM – 9 PM Saturday, September 20: September Meetup Get dinner and drinks with fellow Wikipedians! 6 PM Sunday, September 21: Laurel History Edit-a-Thon Local history for Wikipedia! 10:15 AM – 4 PM Saturday, September 27 – Sunday, September 28: Please RSVP for the Open Government WikiHack at Eventbrite by clicking on the link. The National Archives and Records Administration and Wikimedia DC are teaming up to come up with solutions that help integrate government data into Wikipedia. 10:30 AM – 5 PM each day My best regards, Geraldshields11 (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC) Good job with your recent new WP:PRIMARYTOPIC articles! Just wanted to say thanks for your recent contributions and WP:RM discussions that have resulted in new articles for primary topics of basic English words. I don't know if you'd be interested in another suggestion regarding another example I found that is essentially a disambiguation page that has a lead written like a WP:DABCONCEPT that could be its own standalone article that I just ran across: Host. Since you've been doing quite a few of these lately, I thought you'd be a good editor to know of this. Anyways, thanks again! Steel1943 (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC) I don't think there is a primary topic of host - there are too many diverse meanings, and even some of the similar ones (a biological host versus a hospitality giver) are pretty far apart. That's just my opinion, though. bd2412 T 19:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC) Fair enough. Then, I sort of have a follow-up question: Do you think that the material in the lead paragraph of the disambiguation page can be used as a foundation for a new article that can, essentially, survive an WP:AFD? Steel1943 (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC) I think there's an encyclopedic topic to be covered there. For that, I would start with a page in draft space. bd2412 T 19:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC) I was wondering ... about AutoWikiBrowser ... Since you beat me to the punch on disambiguating the incoming links to Most, I was wondering; how efficient is AutoWikiBrowser in performing edits such as you did for the incoming links to Most? I've been looking for an alternative to disambiguate links since Dab solver is basically no more until further notice. (That, and on a related note, I'm wondering if the verbiage in {{Incoming links}} needs to be updated.) Steel1943 (talk) 14:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC) Autowikibrowser is very, very good if you have large numbers of links, and the disambiguation function is good even if you have small batches of disambiguation links, so long as they are pointing directly to the disambiguation page, and not through a redirect (i.e. to Mercury, not Mercury (album). bd2412 T 14:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship The Barnstar of Good Humor I saw you on my watchlist. Upon reading the edit summary, it seemed like the worst idea ever. After reading the edit diff, it seems like the best idea ever. Antrocent (♫♬) 18:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC) Thanks! I try. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC) (talk page stalker) I just saw the referenced edit: Hilarious! Steel1943 (talk) 18:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC) English rose (epithet) Your "thorny one" comment made me smile :) Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC) The Legends Thanks for closing Talk:Legend (disambiguation)#Merger proposal. What do you think of changing the The Legends redirect to point at Legend (disambiguation)? I am going to be bold and move this. Let me know if you have a problem.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC) No problem - it follows from the discussion. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC) I have fully documented my ancillary changes at Talk:Legend (disambiguation)#Merger proposal. Note the hatnote commentary.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC) P.S. Can you cap the events there now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC) You mean close the discussion with a template? I don't think it's necessary - it's done. bd2412 T 00:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC) One last issue related to Legend disambiguation Since you took the time to consider the issues at Talk:Legend (disambiguation)#Merger proposal, I am hoping you might help us consider a related issue at Talk:Legends (TV series)#Call for a vote on hatnote for this page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC) (below comments moved from the section above. It appears we both responded in the wrong section) I'm not sure to do with that one. Hatnotes are cheap, so there's really no call for a vote to oppose having one. bd2412 T 11:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC) They are usually cheap, because they are rarely contested. I have put them on a lot of places and never been reverted in this manner before. Not sure what you mean by "there's really no call for a vote to oppose having one." It is not clear whether you support or oppose the hatnote, but your voice over here is meaningless. If you could take a moment and say whether you support or oppose this use of a hatnote at the discussion where we are trying to achieve a consensus, it would be more helpful. It takes a number of voices to achieve a consensus and it is better to achieve a meaningful consensus than to end up with too few opinions to determine what consensus is. Since you have already put a lot of thought into these related pages, it is not asking much for you to add your voice to our attempt to reach a consensus.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC) Done, cheers! bd2412 T 00:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC) Church names at parenthetical titles. Greetings! Comma disambiguation for place names is generally for municipal designations like Melbourne, Florida, not specific structures like St. Paul's Church (New York City). Cheers! bd2412 T 16:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC) Where in WP:MOS and WP:COMMADIS that structures are NOT place names? Don't they pertain to a particular place and how come GPS coordinates can be applied to them? Thanks! Anime (talk) 16:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Disambiguation, which says "With the names of cities, towns, villages and other settlements, as well as administrative divisions, the tag is normally preceded by a comma, as in Hel, Poland, and Polk County, Tennessee". Those are the only kinds of bodies for which provide for use of a comma rather than a parenthetical. That is because this usage, identifying administrative divisions of a larger body, is common outside of Wikipedia. A title like St. Paul's Church, New York City would therefore lead the reader to believe that there was an administrative division of the city that happened to have this name, not a particular structure. bd2412 T 16:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC) St. John the Baptist Church (San Juan, Metro Manila) → Pinaglabanan Church (move (@subpage)) – WP:COMMONNAME – Anime (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC) This is even included in your deletion even though the reason I cited is different. Anime (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC) The target page does not include a comma disambiguator, and is therefore correct. bd2412 T 16:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC) Ok then please act on it I cannot move that page. Anime (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)  Done, cheers! bd2412 T 17:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC) Boer Wars and Vienna Award What is the basis for these articles? Neither is about the broad idea of a Boer war or a Vienna award. Both just devote part of the article to the first Boer War/Vienna Award and another part to the second. Completely redundant. There's no broad concept for an article in either case. The Boer Wars have no more in common than the various Anglo-Afghan Wars. The Vienna Awards are no more alike than all the Treaties of Paris. —Srnec (talk) 23:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC) They are not ambiguous topics, however. It is clearly possible to discuss "the Boer Wars" or "the Vienna Awards" as a single topic, since they are related not only by sharing a name (like the planet Mercury and the element Mercury) but by involvement of the same parties acting in the same geographical spheres of influence, and by the historical chain of events connecting them. You could as easily have a List of Boer Wars or List of Vienna Awards comparing and contrasting them. bd2412 T 00:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC) The terms "Boer War" and "Vienna Award" are ambiguous. A list of two items? Isn't that what I did? Shrink down redundant articles to two-item lists with descriptions that compared and contrasted them? As they stand the articles are pointlessly redundant. Srnec (talk) 13:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC) If a person told you they were an expert in Mercury or in John Smith (or even in "the John Smiths"), you would ask which ones. If a person told you they were an expert in the Boer Wars or the Vienna Awards, you would most likely assume that they were an expert in both events by each name, and whatever the connections were between them. It would be very odd if the two Boer Wars, for example, were completely unrelated, so that nothing at all could be said about the commonalities and connections between their causes, course of action, and resolution. bd2412 T 15:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC) Addendum: Looking at Second Boer War, there are two lengthy sections on "Origins" and "Background"; aside from the fact that these seem redundant and should probably be combined into a single section, together they discuss the common elements leading to the origin of both wars, and why one ended differently from the other. This is the sort of thing that should be in an article on the two wars as episodes in a single territorial conflict, with a long suspension of hostilities in the middle. bd2412 T 16:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC) Edits to Amoeba and Amoeba (disambiguation) Thanks for your feedback. For my discussion of recent edits to the page, and the reasons for them, please see Talk:Amoeba. The need for the removal of Amoeba to Amoeba (genus) was discussed on User:Espoo's Talk page, but evidently I should have aired the topic more thoroughly before proceeding. Also, of course, I should have used a different procedure to accomplish the move, but unfortunately was not familiar with the correct tools & procedures for that task. And finally, I did not anticipate that it would be a problem to link Amoeba to Amoeba (disambiguation). I'm not a newcomer to Wikipedia, but I am an infrequent editor (though certainly not an intentionally "disruptive" one). I write and revise the Wikipedia pages on protists because I have an interest in the subject and some expertise to offer, and many of those pages are in a sorry state. Few qualified editors have taken an interest in improving these articles, in recent years, and it shows. Some of them are in an embarrassing condition. The Amoeba article, as the lead makes clear, is explicitly about the genus Amoeba, a fairly minor subject. However, microbiologists commonly use the word "amoeba" (lower case, no italics) in a looser way to describe a certain type of cell (one that uses pseudopodia to move and feed). That is a relatively large and important subject, encompassing many thousands of species that do not belong to the genus Amoeba at all. Most of the links to "amoeba" in Wikipedia's general biological articles are actually intended for "amoeba" in this larger sense of the word. I recognize that redirecting those links to Amoeba (disambiguation) is unacceptable, but at the same time very few of them should be linking to the current version of Amoeba, which deals only with a single genus (one that happens to have the same name, albeit in capitalized form). In your view, would it be acceptable to move the current Amoeba article to [[Amoeba {genus)]] (on analogy with its sister genus Chaos, which can be found under the title Chaos (genus)), and then redirect Amoeba to Amoeba (amoeboid organism)? Deuterostome (talk) 04:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC) If people who hear "Amoeba" are thinking Amoeba (amoeboid organism), shouldn't that article be moved to Amoeba? A move request, with the involved projects notified, would sort that out with appropriate consensus and ideally with a plan for dealing with the incoming links. bd2412 T 04:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC) Yes, that would be ideal. I looked at the first 50 of the incoming links. Of those, 47 clearly do not point to the genus Amoeba and should go to Amoeba (amoeboid organism). Moving that article to Amoeba would solve the problem immediately. Of the remaining three links, two were intended for the page Amoeba proteus and only one was intended for the genus Amoeba. Catching the stragglers is a tiresome job, but I'd be happy to do it, to straighten out the confusion. So, presumably I should begin by posting a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves? Deuterostome (talk) 14:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC) That would be exactly correct. This will be a multi-move, to move the existing Amoeba to Amoeba (genus) and to move Amoeba (amoeboid organism) to Amoeba. bd2412 T 15:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC) Talk:Boer War I think you were over hasty to make a first comment at 17:53 and decide that you have an agreed solution at 19:15, when three out of three other editors have already said that they prefer the Boer War to redirect to the Second Boer War. What was the hurry? Why not wait a couple of days to see what the opinion was to your proposed solution? Also as I said on talk:Boer War discussion about the existence of Boer Wars should have been been held on talk:Boer Wars. BTW did you look at the history of Boer Wars? It was I who originally split the article Boer War into two articles Moving the page to Second Boer War and splitting the content of First Boer War out into a new article back November 2005. Having done that I made Boer War into a dab page. The page was moved to Boer Wars in April 2008‎ by Feydey. A revert of the page move from Boer War to Boer Wars and reverting to to a dab page is another solution that we did not have time to consider because of you hasty edits. -- PBS (talk) 11:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC) I forgot to mention the reason for making it into a dab page at that time was 100s of link went into it for both wars, so having it as a dab page allowed for the fixing of those links. It took a long time and several of them were not changed because it was not possible to tell from the content of the article to which war Boer War the article was referring. It may be that this is still the case -- I don't know. -- PBS (talk) 12:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC) Boer Wars is not an ambiguous concept, per WP:DABCONCEPT. It is possible for someone to refer to the entire period as "the Boer Wars", which means that no matter how well you fix the incoming links at any given time, more will be made whenever someone wants to discuss the period as a whole. Some of these will be unfixable because they will not specifically reference one topic or the other, but both as a set. Another factor is that no discussion of either of the two wars is complete without mentioning the other, as demonstrated by the overlapping mentions in each of the two articles. bd2412 T 12:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC) I did not suggest such a dab page what I suggested on this talk page was a possible solution was "A revert of the page move from Boer War to Boer Wars", while making the point that you did not give us time to discuss this on the article talk pages, because you came to the conversation and made a bold change within about 2 hours. -- PBS (talk) 14:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC) There is nothing that I have done that can't be undone. However, as to those links that can not be "fixed" because you can't tell from the content of the article which Boer War was intended, that is handily dealt with by this solution. bd2412 T 14:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC) ISIS stuff I see the R discussion was closed about this. Do I need to do any gnoming to fix up hatnotes at those I mentioned? I don't touch articles while they are under discussion. Now it's finished, is there some gnoming to do? Happy to do it. Your obedient gnome Si Trew (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC) So far as I know the discussion at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Move request - 6 September 2014 is still open, but that is likely not going anywhere. bd2412 T 22:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC) Consistency in article titles Hi there! Just wanted to let you know that if you decide to open an RfC to upgrade that essay, feel free to drop me a note so I could participate. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 23, 2014; 20:34 (UTC) Thanks - I will do so within the next few days. bd2412 T 20:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC) Draft:Congruence Hi! Wouldn't it be better to just edit the main article Congruence? CrowCaw 19:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC) Why would that be better? It's a disambiguation page, until it is in good enough shape to be a primary topic article. The draft is not yet in that kind of shape. bd2412 T 22:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC) I see where you're going. The draft just looked remarkably like the DAB, which I guess is to be expected for its age. This came up due to the CorenSearchBot tagging it as a copyvio, and the associated case it opens. Would you mind if I tag it with the Internal Copy template (on the talk page) so as to preserve attribution of edits? CrowCaw 23:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC) Please, go ahead. Hopefully it won't look like the dab page for very much longer, as textual context is added which allows some of the dab links to be incorporated in a manner that explains how these concepts are related. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC) Done, thanks! CrowCaw 23:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC) Bugs For future reference, concerning your edit at Northern parula, if "bugs" are mentioned in a list of types of insects, it's obviously Hemiptera (true bugs) that is intended. —innotata 23:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC) Thanks for the tip, I will keep that in mind in the future. bd2412 T 23:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)