Hi, why did you remove the content that I spent time including? Did I miss something? Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
There is already an article on the Benghazi matter, which is where such content belongs. Consensus is required to add any substantial content to the main article. bd2412T 05:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Citizens Advice is on my watch list. Two of your three disambiguations were wrong - Macmillan and Charity. (I've fixed them). Time to slow down perhaps? PamD 05:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
No, the system worked exactly as it is supposed to. We check each other's work to arrive at the correct result. bd2412T 13:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry but that's not the system. The system is that you're sure about what you're fixing. You know that as well. --Midas02 (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure this was a one-off oversight. You can check my other fixes for consistency. bd2412T 03:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
This user (User:Checkingfax) has been using Dabfix as a fire and forget tool. Just hit it, and dump everything it spits out into the dab page. Without sanitising. So adding loads of partial matches, double paragraphs, ... basically rubbish. I've warned him already, need to make him understand to stop it. --Midas02 (talk) 02:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi BD2412, you're a disambiguation expert so I figured I'd run by you a page move I might do. I just accepted Cosmic Girl (airplane) from AfC. There is also Cosmic Girl and a song called "Cosmic Girl" on the Year of the Dragon (Modern Talking album) (which is mentioned in the hatnote on Cosmic Girl). I'd like to move Cosmic Girl to either Cosmic Girl (song) or Cosmic Girl (Jamiroquai song), then create a disambiguation page at Cosmic Girl, since neither the song nor the airplane appear to me to be the primary topic. Does that sound okay from a disambiguation point of view? If it is, then I'll proceed with the page move and establishment of the new DAB page. /wia/tlk 16:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
The Modern Talking song seems like a non-entity. I'm really not sure between the Jamiroquai song and the airplane. I would not object to disambiguation, but I would open a WP:RM discussion to be sure. bd2412T 17:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your insight! Will do. /wia/tlk 17:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
This change which you have made on many articles as of today, aka changing Persian Empire into Greater Iran,[1] is wrong. Greater Iran is an ethno-cultural region, and absolutely not the same as the Persian Empire (!). The concept is in some limited way related to it, but absolutely not the same. How did you even come up with it to change all of it just like that? :-) I hope you are able to revert all changes back through the same way you added it. That saves a lot of effort..
I absolutely disagree with your assessment - all of the incarnations of "Persian Empire" are covered at Greater Iran, which makes it a suitable target for the links until someone else wants to make more precise corrections. bd2412T 04:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
The fact that article X is in some way covered in article Y doesn't prove anything. Nazi Germany is also covered at History of Germany. Should we also change all redirecting links to that? Apples and oranges, dear BD2412. We specifically have the article "Persian Empire" as there were numerous Persian Empires through history. The article was specifically made for people to have an easy overview of the various Persian Empires, and from there to have the possibility to get to the specific Persian Empire in question, be it the Achaemenid Empire, Safavid Empire, etc. Simple logic. When for example at Mausoleum of Halicarnassus you change Persian Empire (though the article specifically states in the infobox that it was made during the Achaemenid era of the Persian Empire), thats simply not a good change. Changing that to a ethno-cultural meant article, which is what the article "Greater Iran" stands for, is completely unhelpful. I contribute alot to articles of that region, and basically with this me and alot of other are saddled up with much extra work. Furthermore you did not even discuss such changes, though they involve quite alot of drastic changes as I convincingly explained regarding reader utiliy and content. - LouisAragon (talk) 04:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
The undiscussed changes that created the problem in the first place were those changing Persian Empire to a disambiguation page; prior to this change, the links were pointing to a more abbreviated equivalent of the content on Greater Iran. bd2412T 05:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Since none of these links were pointing to a "correct" article in the first place, I'm just going to unlink them all and add a note for them to be linked to correct articles if at all. Not everything needs to be linked, of course. bd2412T 05:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Just a drive-by comment, but if you're making changes with AWB running in bot-mode, then you should be able to point to a discussion that approved those edits. Wbm1058 (talk) 04:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
My bot is generally approved for mass-fixes of disambiguation links. bd2412T 05:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, yes, but that should only be to save the trouble of running off to WP:BRFA for a second approval process after finding a specific consensus for the specific set of edits elsewhere. Wbm1058 (talk) 05:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for at least unlinking the Greater Iran link. A further issue is, is that you've done that initial change (idk, looking at my watchlist) for maybe hundreds of articles, making it therefore impossible for me to go through all that and to give the exactly correct link. I agree that links are not a definite must have, but I'm convinced having Persian Empire as a link was still better than having no link at all. - LouisAragon (talk) 06:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation links are always an error, and where the concepts are closely related, they are a nightmare to clean up. No link at all is better than an unnecessary link to a disambiguation page which will confuse both the editor and the reader. bd2412T 12:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
No, that's wrong actually. Says who? You are wrong to say that, and wrong to say "none of these links were pointing to a "correct" article in the first place". You are removing many valid links to "Greater Iran", not bothering to add links to the correct Empire even when this is obvious from the date or context, and wasting a vast amount of other editors' time in a badly-neglected area. It's not the first time I've seen bad edits by the hundred from you. Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
If there are others, please point to them. The links I addressed in this case were pointed to Persian Empire, which has been a disambiguation page in the past, was changed to a WP:DABCONCEPT page listing the different iterations of a "Persian Empire", and was recently changed back to a disambiguation page. I don't see how I can be removing "valid links" to Greater Iran when those were originally links to "Persian Empire" that I just changed to point to "Greater Iran" and for which (following the above objection) I am undoing the change that I had just made minutes before. bd2412T 14:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
No, bad idea. Having fixed a good number of these, properly, MANUALLY, I can tell you that though Achaemenid Empire is probably the commonest correct link, the proportion is not that high. Johnbod (talk) 14:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I suggest we go ahead and fix the problem at the core and simply revert Dbachmanns "WP:GF" edit back? I guess we can "somewhere" understand his "point" for changing it, but clearly he was not aware of the consequences. Anyone who has edited a lot of that regions' articles knows it's simply bogus at best to link a historical entity such as the Persian Empire to a very loosely based ethno-cultural concept. It's nonsense. The mess started with changing it to a dab in the first place. Not only are numerous people now saddled up with extra work, it's a totally invaluable wrong change in the first and foremost place. I suggest we add a note to the article as well that the change won't be made in be future again. The Persian Empire is a definite historical termination used for various empires in-Iran based empires from 550 BC up to including the course of the 20th century. You can't dab that. What do others think? - LouisAragon (talk) 07:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I completely agree, but I think that the place to discuss this would be Talk:Persian Empire. bd2412T 12:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I will copy-paste this then to there, and revert the changes back later today. @BD2412:, do you think your bot can revert all changes back to the original (aka, so that it links to "Persian Empire" again?) after its un-dabbed? Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Not a problem. Cheers! bd2412T 18:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
@BD2412:, well, I copy-pasted it on the talk page, and I removed its dab status as we agreed upon here. I guess you can go ahead now! :-) Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 21:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Doing it now. Cheers! bd2412T 21:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I made about 100 bold edits before your objection. I know there are a lot of links to Gastrointestinal tract, and that can be seen as a big disruption for the dab-fix WikiProject, but I generally don't start something I'm not willing to finish, much as I hope for and appreciate any help I might get. I was taking a break to wait for any reaction to my bold edits. I'd appreciate if you could review them, briefly if you like, and let me know any issues you have with what I was doing. You can see from the history of that redirect that twice in the past I'd reverted attempts to change it; experience tells me that when there it minor "edit-warring" over a primary topic, especially from different editors over an extended period, that usually means there is no primary topic. So, I started disambiguating to confirm that, and the more I did, the more I became convinced that dab was the right way to go. Thinking about how to proceed. I'm estimating it will take me about two hours to write up a thorough and convincing proposal, and what's scary is that I had a tendency to underestimate tasks. I'm not particularly comfortable with "redirects for discussion" as a venue, as this isn't the usual type of simple and elementary redirect that page handles. Thinking it might be better to just do an RfC on Talk:Gastrointestinal tract and call in the WikiProject Medicine editors. If there's an aspect to this I'm not as confident in, it's that I'm not a medical expert. Anyhow, as I said it would take ~2 hours to write up my complete analysis and proposal, I'm just putting out a query to you now, before I put more time into it, for some quick feedback. Would you mind if I moved the dab I created over to Gastrointestinal tract (disambiguation)? Having that there would certainly help with any discussion, rather than having to point to a permalink of a reverted edit. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 05:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Gastrointestinal was also redirecting there. It was more like a dab-concept before a previous consensus blew up the article and split it into two separate articles about humans and animals. I don't believe there will be a consensus to merge them back together again. Wbm1058 (talk) 05:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
If it's between humans and animals, I would think the primary topic of the term for our readers would be humans, and the animal topic would be covered in a hatnote. bd2412T 05:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Since the old version of the article was moved to "human" b/c 90% of it was about people, and only 10% of it was about animals, and our coverage of human anatomy vs. animal anatomy is about as one-sided as our male/female editor ratio, then yes, most links will disambiguate to human gastrointestinal tract, which is why two editors have tried to redirect there. But I reverted them, due to the Rfd consensus to redirect to digestion. That's kind of like redirecting factory to manufacturing, it's not helpful to either those looking for humans or animals, but we punted there because it's the next higher-level or closest related remaining "broad concept" article left available to redirect to. It seems that's more for the convenience of the disambiguators than the readers. Wbm1058 (talk) 05:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi BD2412, can I ask for a contribution from you. I've created hundreds and maybe thousands of case pages for English law, US law, and have been working on EU law recently. This includes English contract law, English land law, English trusts law, US corporate law, etc, and many, many related cases. Just recently two issues have been brought up (1) whether there can be references with red links to further cases in the "See also" section, and (2) whether drop-down templates are allowed to have external links. We have been trying to get a template - like Template:ussc that would work for worldlii and bailii but I don't have the expertise. But a dispute has arisen, about whether (1) and (2) are allowed. This has been thrashed out on User_talk:Sphilbrick#User_Wikidea - and it has become increasingly personalised, about me, to the point where a 6 year old sanction that I'd forgotten has been reincarnated - that came from me (very regretably) insulting another user. But I don't want that to get in the way of what I know has been an incredibly useful set of tools, and way of editing the law pages. I'd be very grateful if you could offer your opinion.
Here is are a couple of examples of a drop-down case menu - I raised the issue on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law. On Talk:Tulk v Moxhay I've posted about the red link issue. Here is another, of the most recent changes. I've done my best to explain the issues, but I'm worried that my stamina is getting thinner, and it's not working. I'm also worried the more I say, the more likely it is that I'll say something stupid. It's also exhausting because I could've been using the time - as I have done for many years - to actually create things rather than arguing about them. I've just posted the same thing on User:Bencherlite's page - but I hope you can offer your input as well. Wikidea 14:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Hey BD2412, before I get started working on updating various links related to StarCraft, I wanted to know how far you might be doing the same work, to avoid stepping on toes. There's quite a bit to look at here. (Secondary: Should StarCraft (video game)'s FA pages be moved to match?) -- ferret (talk) 15:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I was not planning on doing any of the link updating. It is up to those who proposed and supported the move to do that. bd2412T 15:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
No problem. I'm on it :) 16:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Great, thanks! bd2412T 16:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation pages#Given names or surnames
"Articles only listing persons with a certain given name or surname, known as anthroponymy articles, are not disambiguation pages, and this Manual of Style does not apply to them."
By applying disambiguation rules to list articles you are violating Wiki standards and disambig rules. Please stop. You have created great confusion. Please revert all the damage you have done to list articles.
Example:
List of people with surname Spencer [edit]
Shortcut: WP:APOLIST
The Spencer (surname) has a good deal of content, so adding the full list of people with the surname would be excessive. There are enough persons with that surname to support its own list. List of people with surname Spencer is not a disambiguation page; it is a List.
Thank you. Jrcrin001 (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Having never edited the article you cite prior to seeing this message, I have no idea what you are referring to. Cheers! bd2412T 19:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
My apologies. See: List of people with surname Carpenter which is a list page aka an anthroponomy article, and this is not a disambiguation page, and the Disambig Manual of Style does not apply to them.
Where has there been an effort to apply the MOS:DAB to this page? bd2412T 20:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
You cite ...
Links to disambiguation pages
Shortcuts: WP:INTDABLINK
WP:INTDAB
Links to disambiguation pages from mainspace are typically errors. In order to find and fix those errors, disambiguators generate a wide array of reports of links needing to be checked and fixed. Because these reports can not distinguish instances where an editor has made such a link with the intent to point to the disambiguation page, the community has adopted the policy of rerouting all intentional disambiguation links in mainspace through "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects. This makes it clear that such links are intended to point to the disambiguation page.
For example:
In text or in a "see also" section: Incorrect: There are many places named Springfield
Correct: There are many places named Springfield
With few exceptions, creating links to disambiguation pages is erroneous. Links should instead point to a relevant article. The purpose of a disambiguation page is to give a user who has typed an ambiguous term into the search box a list of articles that are likely to be what he or she is looking for.
And ...
Disambiguation pages#Given names or surnames
"Articles only listing persons with a certain given name or surname, known as anthroponomy articles, are not disambiguation pages, and this Manual of Style does not apply to them."
Applying disambiguation rules to list articles is a violation of Wiki standards and disambig rules.
Example:
List of people with surname Spencer [edit]
Shortcut: WP:APOLIST
The Spencer (surname) has a good deal of content, so adding the full list of people with the surname would be excessive. There are enough persons with that surname to support its own list. List of people with surname Spencer is not a disambiguation page; it is a List. The same applies to this list and other similar lists.
Disambiguation
What not to include ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Partial_title_matches
...
To prevent disambiguation pages from getting too long, articles on people should be listed at the disambiguation page for their first or last name only if they are reasonably well-known by it. We reasonably expect to see Abraham Lincoln at Lincoln (disambiguation), but very few sources would refer to the waltz composer Harry J. Lincoln by an unqualified "Lincoln", so he is only listed at the Lincoln (surname) anthroponomy article. This is even more widespread for first names—many highly notable people are called Herb, but typing in Herb gets you an article on plants. Herb (disambiguation) does not even list any people named "Herb", but instead links to Herb (surname) and Herb (given name), where articles on people named "Herb" are listed. Consensus among editors determines if an article should be listed on the disambiguation page.
Instead of nitpicking one rule and not reading and applying other related rules in a logical manner you have created a non-consensus and edit warring. This obviously needs to be dealt with on a higher level. I will be referring to upward. In the mean time, wait for consensus.
Thank you Jrcrin001 (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) @Jrcrin001: While List of people with surname Carpenter is not a dab page, a link such as Bobby Carpenter is a link to a disambiguation page. That link should therefore follow the rule of WP:INTDABLINK, which you copy out above: Links to disambiguation pages from mainspace are typically errors. In order to find and fix those errors, disambiguators generate a wide array of reports of links needing to be checked and fixed. Because these reports can not distinguish instances where an editor has made such a link with the intent to point to the disambiguation page, the community has adopted the policy of rerouting all intentional disambiguation links in mainspace through "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects. This makes it clear that such links are intended to point to the disambiguation page., so the link should be piped through Bobby Carpenter (disambiguation). The links from "List of ..." are clearly not errors; they are "intentional disambiguation links" as described here, and are linked through "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects so that it is obvious that they are intentional links and will not be found in a search for incorrect links to the dab page. I hope this explanation helps. (Incidentally the {{tq}} template, which I used above to put my quote into green in a different font, is quite useful when you want to quote stuff on a talk page, it makes it easier to see what's quote and what's comment). PamD 20:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I saw that you moved to The Legend of Heroes: Trails in the Sky the 3rd, and said "Note that "the" should not be capitalized in this circumstance". But... nobody actually brought that suggestion up in the actual move debate. If someone had, I'd have opposed it due to WP:NCCAPS, which says that words like 'the' shouldn't be capitalized "unless they begin or end a title or subtitle." I would argue "The 3rd" is clearly a subtitle here, and I imagine others would back me up. Would there be any complaints if I moved it to "The 3rd"? SnowFire (talk) 02:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
I have no objection to that, although it certainly doesn't seem right to me, without a colon preceding "The". bd2412T 02:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
I'll mention it on the talk page first, then. Maybe others agree with you? SnowFire (talk) 04:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Brown, Chris. Since you had some involvement with the Brown, Chris redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. sst✈discuss 15:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I have replied there, cheers! bd2412T 16:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Per Three possible outcomes could you please reword "No consensus for any move at this time" at Talk:Case Closed to "not moved" or "consensus is to not move", or something like that? The current wording could be misconstrued as "no consensus" (for anything) when there clearly is consensus (to not move). Thanks. --В²C☎ 18:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Clarified. Cheers! bd2412T 19:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello, doing some cleanup. Could you revert this please? That's not the way to propose a primary topic, he should file a request instead. --Midas02 (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Done. Cheers! bd2412T 20:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
What do you make of this one? [2] No links are pointing to any other person than the actor. --Midas02 (talk) 04:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
And this one needs shifting back Feroz Khan (actor, born 1939), I've reverted a cut-and-paste move. Although I'm not convinced of the primary topic here. Shift if back maybe, and launch a WP:RM process? --Midas02 (talk) 04:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Please follow due process. If there is a primary topic in place (as is the case here), a move request should be started to make any such move official. Otherwise it's just admins expressing personal opinion and abusing their admin powers. --Midas02 (talk) 06:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Due process is a wonderful thing. Since move requests take time, it is sometimes worthwhile to sound out people on what they think, before opening one. Did you change your mind on whether Feroz Khan has a primary topic? EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
(Hmm, apologies to BD2412 for having a go on his talk page) I didn't change opinion, I can see why some would find the Indian actor is not the primary topic. But I was just expressing my annoyance with admins abusing their rights, I see too many of them moving pages when they are not allowed to. --Midas02 (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello, time of the month again. I don't have time to go into it, but care to revert this mess? User created a homonymous article, and starts moving the existing primary topic 'which is in the way'. --Midas02 (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Done - Cheers! bd2412T 21:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Worst-case scenario. Thanks! Onel5969TT me 21:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, BD2412,
Could you please look at Talk:Phaedrus_(dialogue). I think that endless discussion is pointless, counter-productive, and should be terminated. Thank you, BlueMist (talk) 03:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that I know enough about the topic to effectively address this discussion. bd2412T 14:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation is currently running a consultation on the value and planning process of Wikimania, and is open until 18 January 2016. The goals are to (1) build a shared understanding of the value of Wikimania to help guide conference planning and evaluation, and (2) gather broad community input on what new form(s) Wikimania could take (starting in 2018).
I don't understand why you're blanking old user talk pages while a block is still active, like you did at User talk:204.10.222.54. May I ask that if you must blank "old" talk pages, to preserve the shared IP information, especially if it's a school. Thanks.– Gilliam (talk) 04:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
In this case, I didn't blank the talk page, but merely removed the many very old discussions. We do this to for several reasons, but mine is primarily to reduce link load, the number of "what links here" results, typically on disambiguation pages, that can obscure things that disambiguators search for when fixing bad links to disambiguation pages. bd2412T 12:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I understand now the reason, but edits such as these [3], [4] demonstrate that it is possible to blank old messages using AWB while still retaining the shared IP information.– Gilliam (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
If no one has edited from the page in over six years, it is neither a sure thing that the IP information is still accurate, nor particularly useful to maintain that information. In this case, retaining the IP info in the template causes the page to unnecessarily continue linking from Davis School District, Farmington, Utah, and Utah. bd2412T 01:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
You changed a huge number of copies of [[Graph (mathematics) to [[Graph (mathematics)]]{{dn|{{subst:DATE}}}}. Obviously to do this you have access to some search-and-replace software that I'm not using. So could you please change them again, correctly this time, to [[Graph (discrete mathematics)]] without the {{dn}}? The issue is that the (mathematics) disambiguator was considered insufficient to disambiguate this topic from the graphs of functions, so the name was changed; see Talk:Graph (discrete mathematics). However, these links were mostly correct before the change and so globally replacing them with the new name should be mostly correct now, with only a small amount of manual cleanup, instead of the huge pile of cleanup you've left for those of us who care about these articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) To be fair, the "huge mess of cleanup" was not left by BD2412, but by the user(s) who redirected Graph (mathematics) without changing any of the incoming links to that page, as urged by WP:FIXDABLINKS. All BD2412 did was highlight the need for cleanup of the existing mess. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
@David Eppstein: I don't know enough about the topic to know what disambiguation solution is correct. I can change all of these to link to Graph (discrete mathematics), it seems that it will be much harder to find which changes are errors. However, this task is easily accomplished with the AutoWikiBrowser, and I would be glad to add you on the list of AWB users if you'd like to try it out. bd2412T 19:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
If you change all of those to the (discrete mathematics) link, as whoever moved the page should have done earlier, and also remove the {{dn}}, I think the remaining cleanup task (of checking whether all the incoming links really are about graph theory) will be much smaller. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I am doing so now, but with a little trepidation. I will count on you to look over the changes once made, to insure that links intended to point to the other kind of graph are pointed there. Thanks. bd2412T 19:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
@David Eppstein: Done, but check my work. Cheers! bd2412T 20:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Ok, will do. And thanks for fixing all of these. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
...done. I found only 11 links for the wrong kind of graph. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Good. By the way, I would still highly recommend getting AWB. It is easy to use and adaptable to a wide range of purposes. Basically, any task requiring more than a dozen repetitive edits is made much easier through it. bd2412T 22:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I'd be curious to know what you think about Rhine Valley. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Seems like a WP:DABCONGEO case to me. We don't have a disambiguation page at Grand Canyon, even though there are many branches to it. See also Alpine foothills. bd2412T 23:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
@Samtar: I'd like to be able to confirm this, but I don't seem to be able to log in to OTRS. I haven't sent a ticket today, although I did send one a few weeks ago. bd2412T 16:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
This user ignored your suggestion about Draft:Google Earth 3d cities in User talk:Unguriu and moved this page back into mainspace.
Moreover, this is completely unreferenced directory. Please move it back to draft space and issue a warning to this user about proper referencing, since they ignore mine. A good half of the parent Google Earth article is a huge unreferenced catalog. I kept tagging and commenting about unreferenced, but they continue their ways. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
My overwhelming concern was the presence of disambiguation links and other clearly bad links. That concern is resolved. bd2412T 04:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello BD2412, long time no talk. Hope you're doing fine. I was wondering; could your bot perhaps change the link in every article that contains the link Capture of Tbilisi and Gökçe war to Abbas I's Kakhetian and Kartlian campaigns? I just moved the page namely, as the previous title was incorrect. Its a very limited amount of articles, but just a bit too many to do it manually (or better said; to find them manually). Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 02:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with a link going through a redirect. bd2412T 02:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Yep, I know, the thing is however, the name of the link is simply factually incorrect. The "Gokce War" never happened. If it wasn't a factually incorrect name, I wouldn't have even asked you. :-) - LouisAragon (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Done except for a handful. Cheers! bd2412T 04:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you :-) Take care - LouisAragon (talk) 04:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
On Saturday, February 27, we have three different events. In the morning, we're holding an Accessibility Edit-a-Thon at Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Library. In the afternoon, we'll host our second February WikiSalon at Cove Dupont Circle, followed by our monthly dinner meetup at Vapiano.
We hope to see you at one—or all—of these events!
Do you have an idea for a future event? Please write to us at info@wikimediadc.org!
There is a policy discussion in progress at the Manual of Style which affects the capitalization of "I Like It Like That", People Like Us, &c., a question in which you previously participated. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — LlywelynII 11:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I have commented. bd2412T 13:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I have no faintest idea of why the above user is adding inappropriate images to other user's page but I've issued them a final warning. Cheers! Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 16:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
They already had a final warning and they had been blocked... :-P LjL (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Indefblocked. Obviously not someone here to build an encyclopedia. I have also revdeleted all of their contributions. Now it is as though they never existed at all. bd2412T 16:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
That article is going to get deleted. I confess when I first spotted it and its title, I was like "that's going to AfD with a 'delete' from me". But then I read it and it seemed interesting, well-written and actually relevant to American culture. But no good deed goes unpunished. LjL (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! I wouldn't have thought to write it at except for the two enormous footnotes on the topic in Hillary Clinton, and the sources that popped up when researching the matter. bd2412T 04:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I've noticed you've been keeping busy with Category:Language and nationality disambiguation pages (btw, was that discussed somewhere?), but were you aware there's also this one: Category:Demonyms? The latter used to be added to loads of dab pages, don't know if it still is, but there's definitely overlap. --Midas02 (talk) 05:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
There is overlap, but not all demonyms are ambiguous, and not all ambiguous language/peoples terms are demonyms. This was not discussed, but it is a useful category for my purposes. bd2412T 02:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Can you explain why you reverted this edit, please? If you do a web search for "Presidente Médici" you will get a mixture of the president and the two towns. The disambiguation page is a better use of Presidente Médici than redirecting, in my opinion. giso6150 (talk) 12:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
The fact that a term has more than one meaning is not by itself a basis to disambiguate an existing page. It must be shown, and consensus must be reached, that the existing meaning is not the primary topic of the term. We have forums like WP:RFD for such discussions. bd2412T 13:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I've reverted again for now because at present (and since the April 2015 page move of the municipality) there is no access to the two municipalities. I started to add a "redirect" hatnote to the president's page but it became too cumbersome. There needs to be a disambiguation page. The point at question is an WP:RfD: should "Presidente Médici redirect to the man or be a dab page. For now, given that a dab page has been constructed, I think we should leave it there while discussion goes on. But I'll tidy it up. PamD 13:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
And then I changed my mind, re-established the redirect to the man, but created a correctly-formatted dab page for the municipalities and airport. Done. PamD 13:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for taking that last step. Where there is an existing redirect with incoming links, this can not be a matter of any of us changing our mind; there must always be a process of discussion and consensus before changing an existing redirect to a disambiguation page. bd2412T 15:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Ummm, sorry for jumping in, but this redirect is at present not utilised. In English, we would say "President", not "Presidenté". All links pointing to this redirect seem to be related to templates listing one of the municipalities, they are not about the person. So for both reasons, it seems the dab page as primary is more than justified. --Midas02 (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
It sounds like those links need fixing. "Presidenté" transparently means "President", and we wouldn't make "President Washington" a disambiguation page even if there were places named for him (including the title), or templates including references to other meanings. bd2412T 22:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to those who weighed in and added hatnotes, etc. I will point out that the Portuguese for president is presidente (without an acute accent) and there are many, many towns throughout Latin America with names like this. It's much more common than it would be to have a town in the US called "President Washington". And yes, I understand consensus and take your point. Cheers. giso6150 (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I have corrected all of the errant incoming links. bd2412T 01:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
That's not really making sense. As Giso6150 pointed out as well, on English Wikipedia we wouldn't refer to that person as Presidente, but as President. There is a primary meaning however, and those are the towns. And that's not comparable to Washington either, I don't believe we have many places in English called "President x/y/z". So the current setup is bogus. The redirect, merely a colloquial, Portuguese (!), reference to that person, is NOT being used, but the towns by that name have to be found on a displaced dab page. No, that doesn't make sense. --Midas02 (talk) 07:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
All of the places named "Presidente Médici" are named after the person. The use of the phrase, even for a town name, is a reference to the person. I have heard no suggestion that any of the locations is of greater historical importance than the person for whom they are named. bd2412T 12:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the places are named after what the man is called, in Portuguese. That doesn't imply that he is the primary topic in an English encyclopedia. Let's have a formal discussion: I think the correct thing is now a WP:RM on the dab page to move it to the base name. (It could also be thought of as an WP:RfD on the redirect, as that's implied in the same discussion, but I've been told in the past to do it this way in what I think was the same structure of question). I don't hold very strong views one way or the other, as long as every appropriate article is clearly linked (as the towns weren't under the previous setup), but we may as well get it settled. See Talk:Presidente_Médici_(disambiguation)PamD 15:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, your comment on the merger of grass into Poaceae has made me wonder if the redirection of
Grass would be better pointed to Grass (disambiguation), where a wider range of targets
is offered. What do think? Plantsurfer 17:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
The whole point of creating Grass in the first place was to capture the WP:DABCONCEPT; there is a clear primary topic of the term, which is narrower than the set of all possible uses of the word, but possibly broader than Poaceae. bd2412T 18:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
OK, I think now I understand. There is a multitude of links to grass and, of course, I can see the articles that link there easily enough, but finding where the link is located in each article is quite a different and daunting task, and I could be at it for years! I have still been unable to find where the link is in Ancient Egypt, for example. Do you have any tips or tricks for doing this reasonably quickly? Yours in hope. Plantsurfer 21:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I fixed that one (it was under "Maritime technology"), but you are jumping the gun. There is, obviously, an absence of consensus here as to whether grass has a primary topic. Disambiguating the term requires consensus. bd2412T 21:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Recently you replaced a number of instances of "TBS (TV channel)" with "TBS (U.S. TV channel)". In doing so you moved at least 59 articles into the non-existent category Category:TBS (U.S. TV channel) network shows. I've moved the articles back into Category:TBS (TV channel) network shows, which still had 32 members, but that category should probably be moved. The existing name seems a bit clunky though. Perhaps the new cat should be Category:TBS (U.S. TV channel) programs, as "network" seems redundant, and these are all TV programs, not broadway shows. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
I have renamed the category to Category:TBS (U.S. TV channel) network shows for now, since renaming the category to reflect the renaming of the primary topic is standard practice. I have no feelings about "network shows" versus "programs", but you could start a discussion on this at WP:CFD. Cheers! bd2412T 14:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
I had hoped to get rid of the "network" more easily, since the article is about a TV channel, not a network, and use of network in the title doesn't actually reflect the primary topic. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate that, but the longstanding category name already included "network shows", and the supercategory is Category:American television series by network. This seems to require more discussion to implement the change you propose. bd2412T 16:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!edit
please help translate this message into the local language
The Cure Award
In 2015 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs, and we would love to collaborate further.
Can you do me a favour? I've just WP:BOLDly moved The New Day to The New Day (wrestling) owing to the launch today of The New Day (newspaper). Normally I'd file a requested move but I was concerned so many people will be now typing in "the new day" today and get the wrestling team by mistake, that I thought I would just do it. However, I've realised that now leaves us with a lot of redirects - can you help? Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 19:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
All done. Cheers! bd2412T 20:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
