User:BD2412/Archive 008
What a strange usernameMaybe WP:LTA/PT? 76.117.247.55 (talk ) 03:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Rollback privilegeBD2412: please could I have rollback here. As you know, I am an admin on WQ and WV, and have rollback on WB, so I know how to use rollback. Thanks.--Collingwood (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
BagCould you move Talk:Bag_(disambiguation) back to Talk:Bag, merging it with your own comment? All of that talkpage is concerning the article-state-of-page. Ta :) —Quiddity (talk) 21:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC) Edits creating bad linksCould you please explain the following edits [1] [2] that have broken links? Is there an intention to rename Rowing project? --Traveler100 (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
New Martyr editI ran across your edit of the New Martyr article. You disambiguated Hasan to Hassan al-Banna. That seems very unlikely to me as the title New Martyr comes from the Eastern Orthodox Church and Hassan al-Banna is a Muslim. I thought maybe something got crossed up in your edit. Thanks, SchreiberBike (talk) 05:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC) United States v. The ProgressiveI notice that you made some edits to this article. It is currently up for GA review, and could benefit from an expert looking at it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC) First AmendmentHi, I notice you're making a number of edits in the form [[ ) 19:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
RfD; Rewilding AnimalsHowdy chief. Requesting a !recount on the Rewilding_Animals RfD please. Of the four participants (including myself the nom), three proposed deletion of the ones with odd spacing around brackets. This isn't particularly clear from a quick reading of the RfD, largely due to my not grouping the redirects under discussion more clearly, apologies. - TB (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Precious
Congratulations
Your opinion?What do you think about Russ) 11:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)FYI on DYK nomination that formerly was a DABFYI - Template:Did you know nominations/Protestant Bible — Maile (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC) May want to hold up a bitThere is a proposal to move Impulsion (horse) back to just Impulsion. May want to hold off doing the dab links until that discussion has closed, another couple of days, I think. Montanabw(talk) 21:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
YokosukaPer long-standing consensus, as outlined in WP:TWODABS, in addition to the United States Fleet Activities Yokosuka, there are several “Yokosuka” articles which could be placed in a disambiguation page, including Yokosuka Domain, Yokosuka Castle, Yokosuka Line, and numerous “Yokosuka” aircraft. Such a disambiguation page cannot be created until Yokosuka is moved. Thanks. --MChew (talk ) 14:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Coase theorem editHello, I noticed your edit of the Coase theorem article. It does seem likely that they are talking about the allocation of assets, but the Asset allocation article is about the distribution of assets in an investment portfolio, so I don't think that's the link that they are looking for there. Thanks, SchreiberBike (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC) Nokia Theater (disambiguation) listed at Redirects for discussion![]() An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Nokia Theater (disambiguation). Since you had some involvement with the Nokia Theater (disambiguation) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). I helpdןǝɥ I 19:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
US Supreme Court membersThat's odd. The other editor who (earlier today) blanket reverted me on those articles, also missed a few. GoodDay (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
AWB new snapshot (8686)An improved version of AWB is available at http://toolserver.org/~awb/snapshots/ Since you are a really active editor I would suggest that you always have the latest AWB revision. It has fixed some critical bugs (including the wikify-underlinked change) and it is much faster than the one you have. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC) A barnstar for you!
"minor fixes"As I am sure you are aware, this edit you made with the edit summary minor fixes, mostly disambig links using AWB and was marked "minor" was not actually minor: Deleting 31,890 characters would not usually be minor, except when reverting vandalism. Is there a good reason for removing a long history of warnings? —EncMstr (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
DC Meetup #33December 10 is computer programmer, but also the world's first female open source developer! Come celebrate with Wikimedia District of Columbia at Busboys & Poets for an informal get together!
The Washington, DC event will be held on Monday, December 10, 2012 at Busboys & Poets on 5th St NW & K St NW near Mt Vernon Square. The area is easily accessible by the Green Line Mt Vernon Square stop, as well as by WMATA buses .
Kirill [talk] 14:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
ThunderCats (1985 TV series)Hello BD2412. I see you've improved the topic area by writing an entire new article on ThunderCats. What do you think of the {{About}} template at the top of ThunderCats (1985 TV series)? It seems logical to change ThunderCats => ThunderCats (disambiguation), so we once again refer the reader to the DAB page for other meanings. However, this would take away the link to ThunderCats, which is your new article. Any other solution? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Raffaele Esposito![]() The article Raffaele Esposito has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons .
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing DeletionsHi. I don't think your deletions of Nampally and Ibrox disaster will work as you intended. Once the pages are undeleted, the links to them will still be in the database. Links are stored with the destination title as text, not as a page id, so deleting and undeleting does not affect the link record at all. Nice try, though. :-) R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation efforts at
|
![]() |
Thanks for your thoughtful efforts to clean up the List of environmental ministries and related disambiguation pages! DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC) |
Extended content
|
---|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Kyoto -> Kyoto (city)The work you are doing to move Kyoto to Kyoto (city) is not productive. The move to "Kyoto (city)" was done in error and hopefully will be reverted very soon. Please see the talk page of talk ) 02:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
|
A cup of tea for you!
![]() |
Dear chap/chapess, you deserve a nice cup of tea for calmly fixing redirects while people are swearing at you. I have posted a comment at Talk:Kyoto. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC) |
- Thanks, I have commented on the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks
![]() |
The da Vinci Barnstar | |
Thanks for fixing the Category:Ride albums dablink. Now I've seen how you did it, I know how to fix the category ones myself. :) CarrieVS (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC) |
I can't put links for some reason. It was meant to say it was the one on category: Ride Albums. Just so you know what the heck I'm on about. CarrieVS (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Template:Oceania topic
Hello BD2412,
I don't think this is how this template works – or wouldn't all the links after Australia also need amending to include "List of soccer clubs in" (and the template renamed "Lists of soccer clubs in Oceania" or the like)..? Perhaps the template's documentation needs clarification. CsDix (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I see what happened there. bd2412 T 00:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- I have fixed the problem once and for all by redirecting all of those titles through an "association football" redirect. bd2412 T 01:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Apologies
It looked and sounded like spam to me, so my auto-response kicked in. I meant no harm and apologise :) doktorb wordsdeeds 13:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Question
Per this comment at WP:RM: "Furthermore, I sometimes come upon situations where I lack the expertise in a given field needed to tell whether the initial page really is the primary topic". That happens to me all the time when I am doing WP:RCP (not whether it is a primary topic but whether it is a valid edit), and my solution is to just leave the questionable edit to someone else to deal with. We do have a noticeboard for BLP, and ones for some other subjects. I notice that MOS is treated as a noticeboard for MOS violations, even though I find that highly inappropriate. It is true that there might only be a dozen editors who are thoroughly familiar with either MOS and AT, and none with both, and almost the only way to attract any of their attention is at those respective talk pages, but I was wondering, are any of us too proud to just ask the question at the WP:Help desk? Would that be the best place to ask those questions? Should those of us who are familiar with these guidelines and policies be making more of a habit hanging out there to help answer these questions? Apteva (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- I suppose if an edit is really questionable, the thing to do would be to drop a note at the relevant wikiproject asking them to look at it. In my experience, the editors who make questionable moves don't seem to ask questions first. bd2412 T 23:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Creating disambiguation pages.
Greetings! When you move an existing article to create a disambiguation page, please take care to fix all incoming links immediately. Otherwise, readers following those existing links will not longer be taken to the article, and will be confused as to which link they should follow. Please do this now for the disambiguation pages you have already created. Cheers! bd2412 T 05:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for letting me know. Unfortunately, there may be too many pages with links to the article that I can't help not doing that. I'm not too experienced anyway, so could you please assist me with that? Thanks! Bob Mono (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Strange edit
Not sure what was going on here, but I've reverted! PamD 09:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Follow up; request for comment
Hi BD2412, I'd appreciate any comments/ perspectives that you might have related to a discussion with another editor, re: the naming of disambiguation pages. I may not have fully appreciated the guidelines that you previously outlined for me. But my attempt to follow through with them seems to have run awry. Please see the brief discussion on my talk page. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for offering a second opinion. Much appreciated! Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 11:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with redirects
- Edit (I'm putting the update first to save you reading the original): I now see that sinusoid was actually disambiguation page when you made these changes. I assume you knew all of the below, so please ignore, sorry! One little thing that's still relevant is, if sinusoid were still a disamb. page,
[[Sine wave|sinusoidal]]
would be better than[[Sine wave|sinusoid]]al
. I'm guessing this was just a typo. Quietbritishjim (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
FYI, there is nothing wrong with links to redirects; see
[[sinusoid]]
and [[sinusoid]]al
to [[Sine wave|sinusoid]]
and [[Sine wave|sinusoid]]al
, but the original versions were preferable. In fact, if a word (or phrase) unambiguously identifies an article but the article is titled differently, and that word currently does not have a redirect, it's better to create the redirect than to use a piped link. Of course you *should* use piped links if that's not an option e.g. if the text you want to appear in the article identifies a disambiguation page. Even then, you can often avoid a lot of repetition using the Help:Pipe trickBy the way, in the cases where you really have to use pipes, make sure the whole word is included. For example, the link [[sinusoid]]al
links the whole word - it's effectively [[sinusoid|sinusoidal]]
, which is a useful trick. But you changed this to [[Sine wave|sinusoid]]al
, and although the dangling al is included in the link so it's not broken as such, it is exactly the same as [[Sine wave|sinusoidal]]
, which is clearer. Quietbritishjim (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Not having the background to be sure whether the disambiguation move was correct, I took the cautious route and changed all the links to point to what would be the proper disambiguation target. I agree that the -al should have been inside the link. I'll work things like that into the AWB script in the future. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for List of artists who have performed at The Masquerade (Atlanta)
Thanks for doing the disambiguation work. I intended to do it as soon as the bot left me a message, but you beat me to it. Thanks! Keizers (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Hokkaido moves
Hey, I just noticed you did all these moves; thank you! They were queued up at
- Nope, did it all by hand, mostly in groups, by letter. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Disam contest
Well good. :) But. :) I haven't been in the top 4 in quite some time. So. We'll see. --User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 05:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
This is a great idea and am hoping to participate. Thank you… and HaPpY eDiTiNg! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
January 2013
![]() |
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 3778 links in the challenge of January 2013. Rcsprinter (rap) @ 17:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC) |
Thanks! Cheers. bd2412 T 02:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Billy King
Im sorry i never sorted the redirect, but why did you delete it. Rather than recreating the page to add the
- Done. However, please note that talk page redirects resulting from page moves are 20:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation
BD - I filled out the rest of Fort Fisher and did all of the Battle of Corinth links at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Disambiguation help needed., but that's about the extent of my knowledge. If no one steps up to do the other ones, I may put my nose to the grindstone and try to figure out what is what, but I'm relatively inexpert at 20th century conflicts. Cdtew (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Tabitha (given name)
The standard title for given names articles seems to be Name (given name). I am also trying to avoid having the given name page turned into a disambiguation page. The title of the article should be moved back immediately to Tabitha (given name) and the disambiguation page should be separate. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- First, you are flatly wrong about the standard title. See MOS:DABNAME, "Articles only listing persons with a certain given name or surname, known as anthroponymy articles, are not disambiguation pages". Since there are no meanings for Tabitha other than as a given name, there is no reason not to conform to the standards of this encyclopedia. Cheers! bd2412 T20:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- See also User_talk:Bookworm857158367#Given_name_stubs. PamD 09:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Disambiguation
Yes, better wording. I had two drafts from stream of consciousness and tried to make a coherent whole but came in just shy of the mark. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia manuals considered harmful
Hi, thanks for the note on 2-entry DABs. Now I will have to find another sense and start another article, just to save that page. 8-)
However, please ponder about this: "whenever an editor is told to go read a style manual, Wikipedia loses another editor."
A couple years ago I analyzed the growth of Wikipedia, and it was clear that the editor base has been falling exponentially since 2005-2006. It was steadily losing old editors and failing to recruit new ones. I presume that the trend has not improved. Wikiprojects and talk pages now seem to be deserted dusty halls, feel tempted to write "Hello! Is anybody home?"
To me, the cause of the problem is clear: editing has become forbiddingly hard, even for seasoned editors. The vast number of finnicky rules, and their obsessive enforcement (no matter how gentle) by veteran editors, are a big part of that problem.
If I were you, I would advise every editor, whenever I had a chance, to not read any of the manuals or rules. Instead, editors should just look at other articles, and try to imitate what they see and like, and improve on it if they can.
And if I were top honcho of Wikipedia, The first thing I would do is rm -rf wiki/Wikipedia:*. That would go a long way towards saving this project.
All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, the rule is reasonable, and I might have done it that way if I had thought more about it. But I was trying to sort out half a dozen articles at the time... (But having a manual page about it? That, I am afraid, does more harm than good...) All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Revert of change to redirect
Hello. You reverted a change to a redirect. I presumed that edit would have been non-controversial in substance. The redirect, as it stood, did not even direct to a "Thema". In contrast, the diambig that was created as a target included a number of actual Themas, as well as the original target.
You cited
According to that wikiproject page, I gather that "Thema" should link directly to what is now the "Thema (disambiguation)" page, but should be named "Thema". (As the wp project page says, "This situation is avoidable, as the disambiguation page can exist at Foogle.").
That would be best, I think, as Thema properly refers to a number of articles where Thema is significant in the name of the article: such as
Thoughts?--Epeefleche (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- The fact that there are a large number of possible meanings is the beginning of the inquiry, not the end of it. As you can see, for example, there are a large number of meanings at primary topic for the term that can be determined from incoming links, page views, and Google hits for the various meanings. In this case, all of the incoming links appear to relate to the Byzantine district. If you disagree with this assessment, the venue for making such a change is Wikipedia:Requested moves, where a request can be made to move the disambiguation page to the undisambiguated title. bd2412 T20:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- I would think that there are a large number of titles that use that name, but that the one redirected to does not use the name "Thema", would be of moment. And yes -- whenever we have a redirect that is longstanding the incoming links will point to it. That's no mystery. Anyone creating a link to Thema for another reason will automatically see that it points to the wrong place. Or, if they don't, our bot will tend to remind them. It is self-propagating.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- It may be, but it may also represent settled expectations. Since it is incorrect to redirect a base page name to a page with a "Foo (disambiguation)" title, what you are seeking to do here is to effect a page move. The discussion following a page move request will flesh out these issues. I am in the process of bypassing all of the redirects on these pages in case it is, in fact moved. bd2412 T 21:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Great. I know that is tedious work, so thanks. I'll wait till the dust clears. Have also added additional themas to the dab page. It is worthy noting, btw, that the target that you reverted to does not attract the most page views of those articles currently on the dab page. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- While significant, that too is not the end of the inquiry. Is the "most attractive" article a partial title match for which the word "Thema" alone unlikely to be used? I don't know, but these are things to be brought up in support of a move request. bd2412 T23:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm really failing to see anything convincing (to me) for creating a link to an article that: a) fails to even have "thema" in its name; and b) has half the page views of another article on the disambig page. That's half the views even with everyone looking for any other "Thema" ending up on its page. The only thing I can imagine you are considering is long-term usage. But I've just brought to AfD and had deleted pages that were marked for notability five years ago. Nobody paid attention. That happens all the time. That, for example, is why long-term usage on wp is not generally a consideration at AfD or similar places. Indeed, the hatnote on this page was long-term unhelpful, as it failed to point to nearly all the other articles now on the disambig page. I really am surprised that you would restore a link under these circumstances. Non-controversial doesn't mean one couldn't make a poor defense for it as the target; it means that looking at the facts, dispassionately, one sees that there is not legitimate reason to link the article to the current target. Such is the case here. We're not even arguing over whether to link the phrase to the article with twice the page views. Just to the disambig page. Clearly, your direct to the current target send most people to something other than the most read article. We don't need to have a community discussion over things that, legitimately, are non-controversial.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- As I have said, if you wish to have the disambiguation page moved to the base pagename, make a request at 02:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- I heard that. I apparently didn't make myself clear. --Epeefleche (talk) 02:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Is Lancia Thema the "other article on the disambig page" to which you refer? bd2412 T 12:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. I only checked a couple, but saw that one had twice the page views of the current target.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have initiated a move discussion at 16:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Many thanks for the kindness. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. I only checked a couple, but saw that one had twice the page views of the current target.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Is Lancia Thema the "other article on the disambig page" to which you refer? bd2412 T 12:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- I heard that. I apparently didn't make myself clear. --Epeefleche (talk) 02:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- As I have said, if you wish to have the disambiguation page moved to the base pagename, make a request at 02:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm really failing to see anything convincing (to me) for creating a link to an article that: a) fails to even have "thema" in its name; and b) has half the page views of another article on the disambig page. That's half the views even with everyone looking for any other "Thema" ending up on its page. The only thing I can imagine you are considering is long-term usage. But I've just brought to AfD and had deleted pages that were marked for notability five years ago. Nobody paid attention. That happens all the time. That, for example, is why long-term usage on wp is not generally a consideration at AfD or similar places. Indeed, the hatnote on this page was long-term unhelpful, as it failed to point to nearly all the other articles now on the disambig page. I really am surprised that you would restore a link under these circumstances. Non-controversial doesn't mean one couldn't make a poor defense for it as the target; it means that looking at the facts, dispassionately, one sees that there is not legitimate reason to link the article to the current target. Such is the case here. We're not even arguing over whether to link the phrase to the article with twice the page views. Just to the disambig page. Clearly, your direct to the current target send most people to something other than the most read article. We don't need to have a community discussion over things that, legitimately, are non-controversial.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- While significant, that too is not the end of the inquiry. Is the "most attractive" article a
- Great. I know that is tedious work, so thanks. I'll wait till the dust clears. Have also added additional themas to the dab page. It is worthy noting, btw, that the target that you reverted to does not attract the most page views of those articles currently on the dab page. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- It may be, but it may also represent settled expectations. Since it is incorrect to redirect a base page name to a page with a "Foo (disambiguation)" title, what you are seeking to do here is to effect a page move. The discussion following a page move request will flesh out these issues. I am in the process of bypassing all of the redirects on these pages in case it is, in fact moved. bd2412 T 21:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- I would think that there are a large number of titles that use that name, but that the one redirected to does not use the name "Thema", would be of moment. And yes -- whenever we have a redirect that is longstanding the incoming links will point to it. That's no mystery. Anyone creating a link to Thema for another reason will automatically see that it points to the wrong place. Or, if they don't, our bot will tend to remind them. It is self-propagating.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for going above and beyond to make sure that at the end of the day, whatever was the correct result would be reached, here. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Done. There does not appear to be an article on the term at the project, so it is now a redlink.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
WP U.S. Supreme Court Cases in the Signpost
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court Cases for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to SCOTUS cases and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 13:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Your edit rate,
I'm seeing 6 or 7 entries of you in Recent Changes at a time. I don't know what you think, but many bots don't edit this fast.