User talk:Wbm1058/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Wbm1058. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Happy New Year!

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

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

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

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

• File:Haut-Brion 1931 chateau card.JPG
• File:Petrus 1931 chateau card.JPG
• File:Margaux 1931 chateau card.JPG
• File:Cantemerle 1931 chateau card.JPG

Your edits reverted my fix to remove duplicate parameters and these files will soon be placed in Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls. I'm not watching them, nor am I watching this page, so I leave it to you to fix the issues. --  Gadget850 ^talk 22:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@Gadget850: Right, already taken care of. See Template talk:Non-free use rationale logo#Override fields. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

To do: possible merge of {{Non-free use rationale}} and {{Non-free use rationale 2}}

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

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

I like to leave the occasional redirect with an out-of-date r cat so that you aren't left without maintenace categories to sift through.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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have to agree with JoelleJay; as the closer, you are supposed to summarize and verify the arguments and evidence presented. In your close, you instead make novel arguments and present new evidence, but by virtue of it being a close prevent editors responding to and rebutting your arguments.

Further, I am discomforted by the process; going to the previous closer and effectively telling them "If you overturn your close, I'll make the same close" while a move review is proceeding and, in my opinion, was trending towards overturning to move, seems to be at odds with our standard procedures and our consensus model.

Given the issues with it, will you please convert your close into a !vote? BilledMammal (talk) 02:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the above two. This was the WP:SUPERVOTE-y-ist close I've seen in a while: it went on for paragraphs and paragraphs about your opinion on the arguments and barely mentioned the discussion at all. Loki (talk) 02:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Dear wbm1058, I ask you to reconsider. The consensus of an RM discussion is determined by the arguments made in the discussion, not by arguments newly introduced by the closer. Your approach to determining consensus was thoroughly improper. If I ever found myself feeling the need to preemptively write off "cries of 'supervote'", I would be seriously questioning my own judgment. Please undo your action. Adumbrativus (talk) 03:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

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

While I appreciate you closing in favour of my preferred option I don’t believe you are the right editor to do so; your participation in the discussion, even without !voting, has made you WP:INVOLVED. BilledMammal (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Relisting and participating, a relister may later become a participant or closer in the requested move discussion or survey. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and you became a participant, presenting extensive arguments. I ask that you withdraw your close and permit an uninvolved editor to close. BilledMammal (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Wbm1058; are you going to respond to my request? Considering that I'm not the only editor seeing this issue, I believe the only appropriate action is to withdraw your close. BilledMammal (talk) 05:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Come on, the close outcome is clearly the only one possible considering how the discussion went, so does it really matter who did it? I also think summarizing a discussion once for the relisting is effectively preparation for a later close, it didn't make wbm1058 an involved participant who couldn't do the close themselves – if anything, that preparation made them uniquely well prepared to close. Time to move on; this thing is settled and that's a good thing. Gawaon (talk) 07:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Wbm1058 went beyond summarizing in their relist and presented novel arguments (for example, their arguments about naturalness); they became involved.

Further, we shouldn't accept involved closes just because they are right; we should make it clear to all editors, particularly administrators, that they should never close discussions they are involved with. I'm also not convinced that everything Wbm1058 said in their close summary is accurate or appropriate, but the issues there are minor compared to the involved violation. BilledMammal (talk) 07:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

I did not wish to say all of this explicitly because it has a potential to be misconstrued and personalised, but under the agreement that you will consider this a position on abstract principles rather than an accusation on your person, here's the involved policy applied to this particular case:

1. You made non-administrative comments in the discussion (the matter of n-grams). That was in addition to your previous close that was deemed a supervote by enough people to convince you to vacate it, and was subsequently added to the discussion and became a part of the discussion that other participants engaged with.
2. Having first closed as not-moved and been accused of supervoting, you had an incentive to close it the other way to do a "See, I was not biased, I was only reading consensus. What did I tell you?"
3. If you had a bias toward "not moved", you also had an incentive to make an involved close for "moved" when the consensus started to be clear for it, so that the legitimacy of that consensus can be easily challenged now or in the future.

Again, I don't believe any of these is true. But these are the reasons that make you involved and why you should not have been the one to close. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I hear you. In an ideal world we would have an unlimited supply of fresh administrators willing to invest a couple hours in getting themselves up to speed on all lengthy discussions, and promptly close them, and we would have no need for non-administrative closes. We would not have a backlog of two dozen discussions remaining open after a full month. At the time I closed this, it had already spent a full day in "elapsed listing" status, and had fallen well into the backlog. I did not over-speedily close this without giving anyone else an opportunity to close it before I did. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Saw lots of activity going on here and, upon checking, find that Wbm1058 probably deserves a barnstar for sticking with the topic. I've seen scores of long and well-argued discussions topped off by drive-by closers who do two or more closes or relistings in a minute or two, and these make me wonder for a millisecond why I discuss these things at all if the comments aren't really read and analyzed by the closer (but of course I continue commenting "for the record"). Nice work on this close, and Wbm1058 will probably dream in New Zealandish for a few nights. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think I am more coming from "in an ideal world..." than "this close was wrong...". I guess we'll see. I do appreciate the amount of time and effort you put in to try and resolve it. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I don't see any blatant policy-contradicting opinions to discount, from the opinions which were neither too long to read nor incomprehensible. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

If that was trying to say that wikt:pākehā was not a "real" word, I disagree with that. It's in the dictionary. wbm1058 (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

One active contributor to the discussion did argue that Maori words don't belong in an English encyclopaedia and that Maori flags don't belong on his flagpole. But I digress.

More importantly, based on the nose count used to calculate your percentages, I am morally certain you included !votes without a sound basis in policy, whether incomprehebsible or not. And that kind of nose counting - which is part of a vicious cycle - is what drives me (and some other editors) to cynicism about RfCs. Newimpartial (talk) 01:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The ship sailed a long time ago on trying to keep non-English words out of the English Wikipedia. Recently, in my work as a gnome, I've found myself instructed to make spelling corrections, where the only "misspelling" is not actually a letter, but just the wrong diacritic appearing over the letter. I lack the expertise to know whether a diacritic has been correctly used or not, and don't enjoy having to maintain such a high level of "perfection". English itself makes very limited use of diacritics, and I'd prefer the community to just not use them in the English words.

Remember that the titling criteria are goals, not rules. Relatively little about titles goes so far as to violate policies, rather than bend some goals, usually in favor of other, contradictory goals. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• Wbm, while I am not going to be appealing either—I am not looking into the the substance of it—you simply should not have closed. By reopening/relisting the last time, when you were asked to on the basis that your close rationale was a supervote, and then putting your close rationale into the discussion, you became very involved. It's not the kind of discussion an involved editor should be closing. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

To editors Usedtobecool and Newimpartial: please see my response to editor BilledMammal [above]. Thank you! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 08:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Yes, I would prefer to not see this move reviewed yet again too. I thought all the drama over this was done when I archived the topic. Regarding the persistent allegations that I'm somehow "involved" – I've never set foot in New Zealand, and was unfamiliar with the term "pakeha" before I came upon this RM. In my view, one must at least be aware of a topic in order to have "strong feelings" about it. I never said there was a consensus for "common ground". We have common ground because there is a lack of consensus for a hard tilt in one direction over another. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that by putting it in the close statement you give your opinion the weight of consensus. As an alternative, if you reword the close to make it clear that there is no consensus for the "common ground" statement and that it is merely your opinion? BilledMammal (talk) 03:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Again I'm not following what you're on about. Aren't all RM closes essentially the equivalent of judicial opinions, i.e. all my RM closes are my opinion of the consensus, or lack of it, and remedies for dealing with the lack of consensus if there is one. – wbm1058 (talk) 10:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

No; judicial opinions involve the judges opinion, while the closer should not be interjecting their opinion - and doing so would be a WP:SUPERVOTE.

Further, if there is a lack of consensus it isn't the closers responsibility or right to create a consensus - all they can say is that there is no consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 03:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

There is a concept called administrative discretion (wikt:discretion). A search of project space finds this concept is frequently asserted. In recent years, there have been increasing numbers of non-administrator closes, and these closes have increasingly crept into territory where administrative discretion probably should be applied. The result is that "administrative discretion" is becoming a quaint and forgotten concept on Wikipedia. This is not healthy for the project, and this creep has led to increasing backlogs of discussions which are almost impossible to close.

I did not "create" a consensus. I found a (weak) consensus to move the page to European settlers in New Zealand, and no consensus to purge the term "pakeha" from the English language. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

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

This is my relevant edit. @Egeymi: belated reply. There is a note about this on my bot account's user page User:RMCD bot. One of its listed tasks:

• Notifying talk pages of WikiProjects which aren't subscribed to Article Alerts and whose talk pages transclude templates beginning {{WikiProject of moves of interest. (version 5.00)
  • See User:Scott/Notes/WikiProject template redirects. Perhaps the bot should also look for talk pages that transclude templates beginning {{WP .

In this particular case it's not an issue because Wikipedia:WikiProject Magazines/Article alerts exists, but if that page did not exist, my bot would not post a notice of this requested move on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Magazines page with the {{WP Magazines}} template on Talk:Shukan Shincho, whereas it would with the {{WikiProject Magazines}} template. Bots do not automatically follow redirects, and extra coding effort needs to be made to make that happen.

There, I've taken the time to explain my reason. Apparently your reason is nothing more than "because I like it that way", if I'm understanding you correctly. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Seems similar enough to me. I'm confused about what the problem is, but then I'm also confused about why there are so many terms that seem to mean the same thing, but don't actually mean the same thing? wbm1058 (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Not a problem, really, just didn't see the point in restoring a (deleted) non-redirect when the new content is a redirect so was wondering if I missed a refund request or something. Primefac (talk) 13:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The previous editor claimed that the term was "incorrect". I restored the history to show that there was, in past edits, some basis for claims that the term is actually a (correct) valid alternative. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah, makes sense. Primefac (talk) 13:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Wbm1058,

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

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

We also have three red links in hatnotes:

Timeline of United States inventions (after 1991), Timeline of United States inventions (before 1890), ‎Timeline of United States inventions (1890–1945)

Clearing out Category:Articles with hatnote templates targeting a nonexistent page doesn't seem to be anyone's priority.

But Timeline of United States inventions, I see you took care of that. – wbm1058 (talk) 10:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

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

@Mjroots: I don't know about that being the "easiest way". To unpack {{flagcountry}} I needed to make a series of three substitutions, which left behind a bunch of programming logic (#if and #ifeq statements) transcluded into the article (see my recent edits to List of shipwrecks in April 1917). It's not immediately clear whether making your suggested edit loses any of that embedded functionality, though it seems not. Whereas by simply bypassing a template shell that transcludes the output of a Lua module, I'm guaranteed not to lose any embedded functionality. I think the "best" solution would be to rewrite at least some of the template logic into a Lua module, and someday I'll get around to becoming more proficient with Lua so I can more readily do that.

But there's more than one way to get the job done. Feel free to revert my edits and solve the issue another way, if you feel that's better. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree that there's often more than one way to get the job done. As I understand it, there is a finite number of templates that can be used in an article. Not sure of the number but being computer code it's probably a power of 2 (1,024, 2,048, 4,096 etc). Changing the flags in the way I described does remover a larg number of templates from the article. I'll not revert your changes as they had the desired effect, but I feel that the article is probably still very near the template limit. Should it fall into the category again, then we'll change the flags. Mjroots (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mjroots: FYI. There are several technical limits. The limit this article hit was the Post-expand include size. Currently the article includes (transcludes) 2,007,669 bytes, and the limit is 2,097,152 bytes. So yes, it is still close to the limit. You can see this in Show preview, under "Parser profiling data" (help) – you may need to click on that if it isn't showing by default. wbm1058 (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Now 2,044,834 of 2,097,152 bytes – wbm1058 (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The system is timing out with an error message when I try to see the diff of my edit, but I see that {{coord}} was transcluded 242 times; I believe I replaced those, e.g. {{coord|48|20|N|6|00|W}} with {{#invoke:Coordinates|coord|48|20|N|6|00|W}}. There is no difference in output. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

And now it appears that four more shipwecks have been added to the list, transcluding {{coord}} rather than directly invoking the module. wbm1058 (talk) 14:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Belatedly following up on this, four years later. Now the Post-expand include size is 1,691,091/2,097,152 bytes – well within the limit, so the problem has been solved.

Indeed there were some 200 |flag={{flagcountry|UKGBI|civil}} templates, which were replaced with |flag={{#invoke:flag|country|UKGBI|civil}}.

Module:Flag was created @01:48, 7 May 2020‎ by Ahecht. I can archive this now. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Hi Rod, yes, similar issues there, though InternetArchiveBot hasn't visited that page recently. There is a discussion about the solution to this at User talk:cyberpower678/Archive 60#English Heritage website changed the URL syntax for accessing its site database. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

New problem reported at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Historic sites#Recent template changes broke a few list-type articles, recommend splitting them to fix the problem – wbm1058 (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Maintenance
• All pages with titles beginning with Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Maintenance
  • WP:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Maintenance/Diacritics – page created 17:44, 26 July 2022‎
  • WP:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Maintenance/Invalid DOI prefixes – page created 01:52, 7 January 2020
  • WP:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Maintenance/Invalid titles – page created 18:15, 24 September 2017‎
  • WP:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Maintenance/Miscapitalisations – page created 00:16, 2 September 2019‎
  • WP:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Maintenance/Misspellings – page created 00:21, 2 September 2019‎
  • WP:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Maintenance/Patterns – page created 01:24, 16 August 2019‎

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

I see that Headbomb has just requested a seventh report be added to the list. OK, I guess I might find the defacto BRFAs for the above in the bot's talk archives. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Headbomb, when you said Some are ambiguous too, like J. Phys could be for either J Phys and J. Phys. a year ago (see above), I'm still confused about what that meant. J. Phys is a red link, which no pages other than this talk page link to, and both J Phys and J. Phys. link to the page Journal of Physics so I don't see any ambiguity there. This new bot request, which I don't understand, has something to do with this? The reason it took me a year to follow up is that you continue to talk to me in riddles which take me hours to decode, and my time is way oversubscribed. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

When I say "J. Phys" is ambiguous, I mean the correction could either be "J. Phys." or "J Phys", depending on whether or not the article has a consistent dotted style, or consistent undotted style. Or it has no style, and either correction is 'fine' until one style is picked. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Also why are you looking for these BRFAs? They're expansions of existing tasks. They don't need BRFAs. Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-08-01/In_focus will give you a historical overwiew, however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Headbomb. I recall seeing that Signpost article about a year ago, and finding it TL;DR – I shouldn't have. Now I've read it. The pertinent lines, for the intersection of our "busses" on Wikipedia:

• Various maintenance compilations (August 2019) – Used to clean up unusual, weird, or known-to-be-wrong stuff. Browsing the archives of User talk:JL-Bot and WT:JCW will give some insights as to how each feature got implemented over time, but I must warn you that the discussions can get pretty technical.
• Finding common typos, misspellings, miscapitalizations, using WP:JCW/TYPO and WP:JCW/MISCAPS. (See previous Signpost coverage.)

How am I supposed to know in advance that these tasks piggybacked on a previously-approved BRFA rather than getting approved as new BRFAs? Right, as I suspected, I'll find the defacto BRFAs for the above in the bot's talk archives. Or, more precisely, what you asked the bot coder and operator to implement. Now I'm off to read that earlier Signpost article about finding common typos, misspellings, miscapitalizations. Sorry I haven't been paying closer attention. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

My question is why would you expect them to have individual BRFAs in the first place? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know, I suppose it's possible that this bot's operator sometimes implements enhancements that they designed on their own, without discussing them with anybody. I've occasionally done that myself. But after digging through the haystack, I found User talk:JL-Bot/Archive 5#'Exact' searches, which is the "defacto BRFA" I was looking for. But, as you warned me, that discussion is pretty technical, so I still have only the foggiest idea about how those reports are generated. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

We're talking past each other a bit here. That was obviously a bot request (BR), but as for the FA part, the only person who had to approve it was the bot operator. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:19, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Is it really important to know in which report it came from? It might not even have been in any of those reports. I might have been me looking at WP:JCW/G15 and I wondered what ZEFQ stood for. Or maybe it was listed in WP:JCW/DOI/10.1010#1016, or WP:JCW/Publisher1#Elsevier or Special:WhatLinksHere and I asked the same question.

What matters is that it's been found and tagged. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Heh. @10:37, 28 August 2010 Guillaume2303 moved German Journal for Evidence and Quality in Healthcare ZEFQ to German Journal for Evidence and Quality in Healthcare (remove German acronym (not part of English title))

Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen

Thanks for taking care of the four incoming links.

OK then. So maybe the list is more than just a list of WP AJ-tagged typos/incorrect names/mispellings. I'm still left wondering why you bothered to post that long list to my talk, but, I guess it doesn't matter. I now have a deeper understanding of how WikiProject Academic Journals operates, and how complex its operations are. I'm ready to archive this thread, shortly. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Because, at the time I posted it, you were doing a lot of typo work in citations, so I figured you'd be interested in that list. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

@Asilvering: I never did get around to that, before a merge-patrol editor removed the template. I just cleaned up the articles Intermediate public transport, Paratransit, and Demand-responsive transport, making them circularly redirect to each other. I guess they are what they are; there seem to be differences in usage between India and the United States. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

No big deal, I suppose. If it ends up being more of a problem, we can always deal with it then. -- asilvering (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Wbm1058,

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

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

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

Noted that the case request Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions was declined by the Committee on 19 May 2024. Regarding A quick glance at that discussion, where the request has plenty of opposition, gives me the initial impression that it should close as no consensus, which would result in the page title remaining the same. But any potential closing administrator should realize that the next step will be another tendentious discussion at "move review", where the closing admin risks the embarrassment of watching their close get overturned. That had a non-admin closure a couple days later (at 02:01, 13 May 2024) in favour of Move. That non-admin obviously got the message.

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Titles of European monarchs was added to {{Centralized discussion}} on 23 June 2024, and removed on 12 August 2024. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Closure requests#Titles of European monarchs feels like a bigger train wreck than even X. Labor Day is tomorrow; I need a break. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Titles of European monarchs closed by a non-admin on 26 September 2024 as a "partial consensus". Sigh. Just seems a surface-level analysis. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Yes, I saw that one, too. It's a mash-up of the two valid names. 145 pages link to that, and need to be sorted as to which name should be used in context. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I've never seen your incorrect links report before. Thanks for sharing. I might help clean up some of them if I need a light maintenance task to work on. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

A big thank you for your help to clear Category:Cross-namespace redirects into its subcats. Really can't thank you enough! Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 03:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. One final push to clear most of the rest, and then it will be time to take a break. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Break? Whassat?! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 05:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• Just a note that Category:Redirects to user namespace is significantly underpopulated. I was working off the list at User:Largoplazo/WP Redirects to further populate it, and worked my way through the A's. It's on my patrol list, so I may get to it eventually. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

  I finally used AWB to populate Category:Redirects to user namespace; it now has over 900 members. My technique was to Make list from source Special page: All Redirects in namespace Wikipedia: – the category hasn't yet been fully populated for other namespaces. I think all of the cross-namespace redirect categories can and should eventually be populated by bots... AWB may be able to do that with a sufficiently sophisticated configuration. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

  See HERE for the regex find & replace used for this. I manually monitored this and had to skip some that were already rcat templated; also may have missed some. wbm1058 (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

  Or the database query method used to generate User:Largoplazo/WP Redirects may be a more efficient method than my AWB special page walk-through. I need to figure out how to do that myself. @Paine Ellsworth: FYI. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping, Wbm1058! That's pretty cool stuff you're doing – and waay outside my full comprehension. Please keep up the great work!  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  15:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

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

• Query – User:Wbm1058/Talk-to-mainspace redirects – wbm1058 (talk) 00:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

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

• Redirects from namespace 4 to namespace 2 (Wikipedia → User)
• Redirects from namespace 4 to namespace 3 (Wikipedia → User talk)
• Redirects from namespace 5 to namespace 2 (Wikipedia talk → User)

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

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

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

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

Dear Wikimedian,

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

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

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

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

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

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

What a long process it's been, just to get a full quorum for the initial committee seated. They are still scrutinizing the votes for the second Election. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Wow. Just checked in to find the status of this, and found that the special election only filled one seat, leaving eight (8)! seats still vacant. That election wasn't really so special. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

The m:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee is open for business (so far, just two Cases). They declined "Arabic Wikipedia admins against the Levantine Arabic Incubator Wikipedia", and accepted "Missbrauch von Adminfunktionen im deutschsprachigen Wiktionary", on 15 November 2024. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:58, 23 November 2024 (UTC)