User talk:R'n'B/Archive 12

Huge thing coming up in a few months.

Greetings, my friend. You may have heard that D.C. area Wikipedians, including myself, have been working with the Smithsonian Institution (through Wikipedia:GLAM/SI) to work out the potential use by Wikipedia of material in the Smithsonian collections. To this end, the Smithsonian may prepare materials in their database for a possible batch upload to Wikipedia as articles on specific artifacts in their collection. Not to overdramatize the situation, but we may be talking about upwards of a quarter-million articles. Of course, your bot-mastery came to mind in contemplating just how we might handle this. We'll be having another meeting with the Smithsonian in a month to work out details. Is this something you would be interested in helping with? Cheers! bd2412 T 17:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It sounds exciting and I'd like to know what I could do to help. Let me know as it develops. (By the way, I haven't forgotten your New York request but haven't yet had a chance to do anything with it. I think it needs a web-tool rather than a once-every-so-often report, which will take a little more development.) --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I certainly do appreciate that. I will let you know how things proceed. As for the New York pages, I moved the first one and created Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/New York disambiguation report/Adams. If I move them all but create a comparable report for each, will that be enough to set up a solution? Or should I wait until a solution has been implemented? bd2412 T 16:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Julia Pirie

I have had another go at Julia Pirie, which has been previously deleted for copyright violation. Here it is: Julia Pirie in sandbox. Please take a look and let me know if it's good enough. Thanks Budhen (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Page titles

That's the thing, I know there is a move button, but where I am it doesn't appear on the top of the page, I don't know why. It's the computer, I guess, because in some places the computer doesn't present all the features of wikipedia, such as the buttons like "redirect", etc. Sorry about that, it makes my work harder. Phoebus de Lusignan (talk) 12:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Republics of Russia

Thanks for your comment, R'n'B. I am, however, not quite sure if your concern is different from Offliner's—the solution I suggested on my talk page should remedy yours as well, no?

On the other hand, if a part of your concern is having the articles at the fully spelled out names, consider this. There are currently twenty-one republics of Russia. Of those, the titles of four (Altai Republic, Republic of Karelia, Komi Republic, and Sakha Republic) were already fully spelled out before I started to work on the rest. That's nearly one fifth, and they can't be moved to shorter names for ambiguity reasons much more pronounced than those with, say, Adygea or Buryatia. Furthermore, names of the articles about fifty-five krais and oblasts are also fully spelled out, because the short name is either already taken (Irkutsk Oblast vs. Irkutsk) or is not used in English on its own (Primorsky is not an acceptable short name for Primorsky Krai, for example). The only autonomous oblast of Russia (Jewish Autonomous Oblast) is at full name because that happens to be what it is usually called in English anyway. And the autonomous okrugs are at full names because a variety of short names (neither of which can honestly be called "common") exists for them. So we have sixty-six federal subjects (~80% of them all) with names fully spelled out, and seventeen republics which are not. I'm moving them to longer names mostly for consistency sake. Note also that I'm not just moving them to some made-up Wikipedia-only names (like it is often the case with the monarchs—Ivan IV of Russia is "common English", really?), I am moving them to what is often a more correct form than what we are using currently. Consider, for example, that while both "Dagestan" and "Republic of Dagestan" enjoy equal official status per that republic's constitution, such is not the case with, say, the Republic of Adygea—just "Adygea" is not the official name. Add on top of that the issue of ambiguity between the historical entities, and having the nineteen republics at slightly longer titles should make a lot more sense, wouldn't you agree? Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 25, 2010; 13:27 (UTC)

My concern is basically the same as Offliner's; however, I wanted to make the point that the same solution should be applied to the other disambiguation pages you recently created for federal subjects, not just limited to Dagestan. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no real objections to doing it this way, although I believe it would be more beneficial to consider them all individually, not as one wholesale unit. What makes sense for one does not necessarily make sense for them all.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 25, 2010; 14:22 (UTC)

Hello, R'n'B. You have new messages at Ezhiki's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I mentioned "automatic" because I was under the impression that some bots (even if they have to be initiated manually) are involved in that type of cleanup as well, no? At any rate, it would have been more helpful to have folks with experience in large-scale cleanup do it—the redirects could use some straightening because in this particular case there's no benefit whatsoever of linking via a redirect as opposed to a straight link. Oh well, if that's not what projects like TDD are there for, I'll manage on my own. Point taken; thanks for your time and patience; I won't be a bother in this area again.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 27, 2010; 14:24 (UTC)

FOO

Bot appears to be creating lots of pointless redirects from FOO (disambiguation) to FOO, when there is little chance of more than one article on FOO. E.g. [1]. What's the point?  Chzz  ►  13:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:INTDABLINKS. This bot task was discussed and approved. Anyway, redirects are cheap, so why not? We have many redirects on the books that are much more pointless than these. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I second that, and note also that all of these redirects are only being made to existing disambiguation pages, and specifically to existing disambiguation pages which already have incoming links, which are likely to have at least some intentional incoming links. bd2412 T 15:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Situational Awareness

Greetings, R'n'B !

What do you think about reviewing the discussion page for the entry on Situational Awareness and updating the actual article with suggestions in the talk page?

I suppose I could update the entry but I would want someone to review what I did, and since you touched the entry last, I thought I would bug you about it. LOL. I can update the page but would you review it and correct anything I do that's not clean? NotSoOldHippy (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually it's Situation awareness and all I did was fix an ambiguous link. However, I took a look at the talk page, and I'm concerned that you are verging on original research. You have news articles that say that certain events happened, and then you on your own are drawing the conclusion that these are examples of lack of situational awareness. If you had found reliable sources that concluded that these are examples relevant to the article, that would be different. However, the role of Wikipedia is to compile and summarize what has been published elsewhere, not to introduce novel analysis or conclusions. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Humm. The incidents of failed SA are specifically stated as failed SA in the 24/Aug/2010 safety alert issued by the USFS in the ANF where the incidents occured so there's some legitimacy in the suggestion that incidents are some how "research." Any conclusions are those by the Federal agency which specifically expressed the need for better SA.

Yet the article itself is still lacking specifics on how observation carries forward in to decision and from decision to action. As I mention, memory is not even mentioned in the article whereas it's covered extensively in extant research. I suppose I could drag forth academic reviews which cover memory and mitigation of SA failure. As it stands, the Wiki article could be a lot better.

Thanks for your comments.

By the way, I'm aware of what WikiPedia is and what its "role" is -- I've been active in various incarnations since WP's inception. NotSoOldHippy is just my latest name, I never can settle in to one name since that's, well, boring. }:-} NotSoOldHippy (talk) 01:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Species abbreviations

Heya, Russ. Of course I've been watching the workings of RussBot these days, and have noticed that species abbreviations have not been getting redirects (for instance, see this list). Now, I'm assuming it's going in alphabetic order - any idea why the bot is skipping these? Cheers, --JaGa^talk 09:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. They are using a template {{Species Latin name abbreviation disambiguation}} that wasn't on the list of recognized disambig templates, until I added it just now. When the bot gets to the end of the list, I'll run it again to pick up the pages that were missed the first time through. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Great. That'll be a nice drop in TDD. --JaGa^talk 12:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Not that I want to ask any more of you than I already have... but when RussBot is done making those redirects, it would be useful to have it go through the disambig pages that link to disambig pages and change all the "foo" disambigution links in the "See also" sections to "foo (disambiguation)" links - provided, of course, that there's nothing else on the line. I estimate that this would clear about 6,000-8,000 intentional disambig links. If that can be done, then it would also make sense to generate a new report of disambig pages with links to disambig pages, excluding those intentional links. bd2412 T 15:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

RussBot is done with its initial run. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

working on a deleted page

Hello,

I was working on a page for the organization I work for called Global HIV Vaccine Enterprise. A wiki admin moved my page to the sandbox so I could edit further, as I had to edit the language that I was using from our marketing materials. Now I see the page is deleted, so I'd like to attempt to write the page again. The instructions said to contact the person who deleted the page first, so that's what I'm doing. I'm taking cues from wiki pages for other orgs similar to try and have more success with this page. One admin I was IM-ing with suggested I write the page from a third party perspective. I'd be happy to have any other advice. I tried adding more sources and to the article. Can I start working on this article from the sandbox and then request approval? I'd like to prevent the article from being deleted again.

Thanks for your help.

Jennimay (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Jennifer

As far as I can tell, there has never been a Wikipedia article with the title Global HIV Vaccine Enterprise. I cannot find a deleted page without the exact title (including correct capitalization). --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the deleted page is Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Global HIV Vaccine Enterprise, which was deleted after Jennimay moved it to that title from User:Jennimay/Global HIV Vaccine Enterprise. No action is necessary, as that title has been moved back to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Global HIV Vaccine Enterprise. —C.Fred (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

…Although most of the content has been blanked for copyvio. —C.Fred (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

missing citations tags

I noticed that you added a missing citations tag on the top of the geotechnical engineering page. I agree that parts of the article need to be improved in this regard, but some of the sections are well referenced, I believe. The opening section did not have references so I added a couple citations to the opening section of the article, and I am wondering if it is now OK for me to remove the missing citations tag at the top. I would leave the tags on the sections that do not have references. It is just that there are two such tags at the top.

I am fairly new to editing wikipedia, so if you can point me to a policy article on how to judge if citations are needed and when it is appropriate to add or remove the missing citations tag I would appreciate it.Blkutter (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

September

Whoops. Forgot about that :) I'll go to my everyday list for awhile. And maybe *gasp* parts of Wikipedia. :) --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 10:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Well looks like a couple of others picked up the slack at least to a degree. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 05:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

RussBot Goof

In this recent edit from within the hour, RussBot changed a hatlink from a correct direct wikilink to a redirect. You might want to check the bot to make sure it isn't doing this in other areas. Should be easy to fix if it is. Just letting you know. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the bot's edit summary? The change was not a "goof", it is the intended purpose of the bot task. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I read it, didn't make any sense. The bot is essentially going over a link that works, no problems and creating a redirect for really no apparent reason other than to...direct people to rename that page, I think. Just silly. To paraphase (and add to) the old saying: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it and don't mess with it either". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I have went ahead and forwarded this to ANI as I feel this might a bad use of the bot. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Journal

I noticed you are fixing links to the dab page journal. Wouldn't it in most instances be better to delink the term per WP:OVERLINKING? Ucucha 12:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Certainly in some cases, yes. I don't know whether it will be "most," though. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

About

See Template talk:About#Is the template broken or just my usage?. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Masking vandalism

Hi RussBot. This may be a FAQ, but your edits may cause people to think that an article is OK when in fact it has recently been vandalised. I have in mind Cosimo de' Medici, which was badly vandalised by 76.171.125.154 on 3 September, and then modified by yourself on 6 September; see differences. (I have fixed the problem.) The point is that if somebody looks at a history list and sees that the last edit was non-vandalic, and if they assume that nobody would edit a page without checking for recent vandalism, then they might think the article is OK when it is not. If there was any way that you could check for recent vandalism before modifying an article, that would be great. AWhiteC (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a problem of all bots, even including anti-vandalism bots that revert the last vandalistic edit (but leave the edit before, which might be less obvious vandalism). bd2412 T 19:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

{{other people3}} code problems

Hi-I think your last edit may have broke the code. --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you link to a particular page that has a problem? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I see what the problem is, and think I've fixed it. Thanks for the heads-up. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was cleaning up {{Other uses templates - documentation}} when I noticed that 1/2 the page didn't have the light green background, but now it's not doing that, since you changed it back. Hope that helps! --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Deferent and epicycle

Hi. I see you tagged Deferent and epicycle with a contradiction flag. There was previously a tag from March, which has recently been fixed, and so I was about to remove that flag. I can't see any comments regarding your second flag, which was put on after the fix, so although I've boldly removed it (since I can't see any contradictions), I thought I'd check to see if there were any I'd missed. If there is still an contradiction in the article, feel free to put the flag back, and a note on the talk page regarding the reason. Cheers. -- WORMMЯOW  09:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy category delete

G'day R'n'B, you recently removed the db-c1 tag from Category:Recipients of the Order of the Tower and Sword due to an article existing in the category. I raised the original db-c1 and then inadvertently placed the Samuel Morse article into the category. I have now correctly categorised the Samuel Morse article and the category is once again empty. Consequently I have restored the db-c1 tag. In these circumstance, I would appreciate it if you would consider deleting the category immediately per the original 4 day timeline, rather than allowing my mistake to delay the delete for a further four days. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 09:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

POV tag

Why did you ad a POV tag here:[2] ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't add it; I moved it from the Six-Day War section. In retrospect, that was probably a mistake; even though the POV tag had the language "...of this article..." it probably was only meant to cover that one section, so I've put it back there and revised the wording. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Why tag this article?

Just curious as rto why you tagged my article on Howard Rubenstein the moment it was created? Did you actually read the article? Did you check the citations? Makes me wonder. ``Philip.marshal`11

Philip.marshall

What do you think I did, and what gives you the idea that I did it? If you mean Howard Rubenstein (physician) (thanks for making me guess which article you meant), take a closer look at the page history. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Missing hits in the new dab-to-dab run

I spot checked a few, and some hits in the old run are missing in the new. For example:

• Hammer (nickname) links to Glen Allen
• Har links to Mahadeva
• Hara has disambig links which do not show up in either report.

Thought you'd want to know. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'll have to figure out what caused this. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Double redirects for Zimmerman/Zimmermann

Hello,

Part of the instructions were missed.

Redirects to disambiguation pages "The preceding paragraph does not apply to redirects to disambiguation pages for reasons other than signaling intentional links: do not create a double redirect, but make a redirect to the disambiguation page directly (thus Ann Hathaway, a redirect from alternative name, redirects directly to the disambiguation page Anne Hathaway and does not go via the redirect at Anne Hathaway (disambiguation)). Zimmerman(disabiguation) to redirect to Zimmerman is a double redirect. Going directly there is better than a redirect. I hope this helps.

On the same page, under the section of Create or move a disambiguation page the following is listed:

"Use "Foo" rather than "Foo (disambiguation)" as the disambiguation page name unless there is a primary topic (see Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Generic topic). If "Foo" is a redirect to "Foo (disambiguation)", the disambiguation page is malplaced, and should be moved from "Foo (disambiguation)" to "Foo". In some cases, you may be able to use the move tool immediately. If the move requires an administrator, you can report it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages#Manual list or tag the redirect with {{db-movedab}}."

IE Use Zimmerman or Zimmermann rather than Zimmerman (disambiguation) or Zimmermann (disambiguation).

I hope this helps. Jrcrin001 (talk) 07:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be extremely confused about the difference between a link and a redirect. The links at the top of the Zimmerman and Zimmermann pages are just that: links. They are not redirects. Therefore, changing those links did not, and could not, create a double redirect. A double redirect occurs when page 1 is a redirect to page 2 and page 2 is a redirect to page 3. Creating a link to page 2 is not a double redirect. Indeed, in some situations it is desirable to link to a redirect rather than linking directly to the actual article title. The edits I made yesterday were designed to identify these as intentional links to disambiguation pages; please see the preceding section for further explanation. The portion of WP:D that you quoted above is discussing the creation of double-redirects; it is specifically indicated that this is an exception to the general rule that links to disambiguation pages in many situations should be pointed to a redirect that contains the word (disambiguation) in the title. If you read the entire section on intentional disambiguation links again, and pay attention to the difference between links and redirects, I hope you will see that you misunderstood the guideline. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

link edit to Udi

I would like to ask you to stop making this edit, as UDI is the correct link, UDI (disambiguation) merely a redirect to UDI. Thank you. --JorisvS (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:INTDABLINK. Either link takes the reader to the same page, so they are both equally "correct"; however, the (disambiguation) link provides important maintenance benefits. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "maintenance benefits"? --JorisvS (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is explained (at least briefly) in WP:INTDABLINK, which is why I included that link in my edit summaries as well as in the message above. For a more detailed explanation, I will quote another user:

• Let me give you a thorough explanation, then, of why this is necessary. Links to disambiguation pages are generally wrong; they are intended to go to some page with a more specific title that can be found on the disambig page. For example, where an editor writes "[[Jeff Jorgenson]] was considered to be a great baseball player", he doesn't intend to create a link to the disambiguation page for "Jeff Jorgenson", but to the article "[[Jeff Jorgenson (baseball player)]]". There are approximately 925,000 of these ambiguous links today - down from 1.35 million a year ago, thanks to the efforts of disambiguators. In order to fix these links, we have programs that generate lists of all of the links to disambig pages. These programs can not tell if the author intended to point to a particular article, or to the disambig page, so if the sentence is "There are many people named [[Jeff Jorgenson]]", there's no way to know that this is actually intended to point to the disambig page unless a pair of human eyes fall on it and make that determination. However, we have many editors going over these lists all the time, and every time a disambig page is intentionally linked, every one of the editors going through that list will have to take the time to independently review that link and determine that it is intentional. In order to make it clear to the list-making programs (and editors running through the lists by hand) that these links are intentional, we pipe them so that they read "There are many people named [[Jeff Jorgenson (disambiguation)|Jeff Jorgenson]]". Look at the "What links here" list for the disambiguation page, James Smith. We can tell right away that all of the articles that are shown on that page to redirect to "James Smith" through James Smith (disambiguation) are intentional links to that page, and don't need to be checked. Multiply that time savings by the fifteen-thousand or so disambiguation pages (that we know of so far) that have, collectively, hundreds of thousands of intentional incoming links. If the link was set up as [[James Smith|James Smith (disambiguation)]], it would only appear to be fixed, but would still show up on the lists as needing to be fixed, and therefore waste thousands of hours of disambiguator time. bd2412 T 18:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. I still can't get any of that from the description at WP:INTDABLINK, though. As for my thing, I basically just don't like to be linked indirectly (with this note in the upper left); but as there is a much better reason to have it "your" way, that is obviously preferred. You don't suppose there is someone who'd like to program that it doesn't show up in the upper left when a page named xx (disambiguation) is redirecting to xx? --JorisvS (talk) 21:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible malfunction on recent edits

The bot is possibly malfunctioning on its recent edits, such as the one on Estey Organ. All is One (talk) 20:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I don't see any malfunction. The bot is doing exactly what it was approved to do. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Templates 00sbox and 00sboxBC

I noticed these changes that you made to template 00sbox (sorry, I can't remember right now how to make that appear as a link to the template without actually transcluding the template). Could you make similar changes to 00sbox BC? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll try; I'll take a look a little later and see what needs to be done. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. It was a little more complicated because the BCs template is laid out with multiple template calls. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 21:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Russbot malfunctioning?

Russbot appears to be malfunctioning by replacing links to disambiguation pages which aren't followed by "(disambiguation)" with those that are, even though that disambig page redirects back to the original page (e.g. here where it replaced Broadwater with Broadwater (disambiguation) even though the latter is a redirect to the former). This simply creates an unnecessary redirect, and I see no point in this whatsoever. If this is the way it's supposed to work, I apologise, but please give me a good reason for doing so (or point to the original discussion). I'll be happy to unblock it when this is sorted out. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 05:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This is actually correct and is done to differentiate between articles which should be pointing to disambig pages and those which shouldn't (or links which may need to be fixed). See WP:INTDABLINK for more details on that. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I see the point, though it appears unnecessary, and makes it harder for screen-readers. However, WP:INTDABLINK states Links in most hatnotes and in the "See also" sections of articles or other disambiguation pages should not be piped; that is, the word "(disambiguation)" should be visible in the link to alert the reader to the nature of the linked page. By piping the link, Russbot is not complying with this. I'll raise a query at WP:AN for further input. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 06:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the explanation linked in the bot's edit summary before blocking it? I don't see how you could possibly have read that and still believed the bot was "malfunctioning." You might not have agreed with it, but at least you would have to have realized that the edits were the intended operation of the bot. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 08:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

As for the piping, that is being done because a number of users objected to the bot's operation without the piping, and I changed it to accommodate those concerns. But no good deed goes unpunished, as they say. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 08:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi - sorry for the delay getting back to you. I got called to a meeting at work at short notice, and didn't get a chance to log on again till late. But enough of my problems...

Yes, I have read the pages you linked to, though I admit I didn't read them all until after I shut down the bot. The reason I blocked it hastily was that it was active at the time, churning out several edits a minute all potentially making the same mistake. I therefore took the decision to shut it down, as it would be easier to restart it rather than revert hundreds more edits if that became necessary. Having read the various discussions, I'm happy for the bot to continue as before, though I do have a couple of recommendations:

• Add a line to your explanation stating precisely what the bot should be doing, i.e. to change [[foo]] to [[foo (disambiguation)|foo]] in hatnotes even though the latter is a redirect to the former. This will prevent other admins from making the same mistake.
• If consensus is to pipe the link, then the WP:INTDABLINK guideline I mentioned in italics above should be updated to reflect this. I see you've already done this.

My apologies for the disruption; I understand that it can be frustrating to keep jumping through the hoops to keep this task going, but I hope you understand my reasons for the shut-down. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 18:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for those constructive suggestions; I think rewriting the explanation as you suggested made it much clearer. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. For your information, I have reverted this, in which it purposely links to a redirect. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 12:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Rehman, that's what it's supposed to do (see above). Russ, would an edit summary like "deliberately replacing dab link with link to redirect" help us to get the point? —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 13:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see. Sorry! Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 13:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

My explanation (right or wrong) for the apparently eccentric behaviour of the bot can be found here (though the question had been removed by the time I finished writing the answer!) Feel free to use it if it helps. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c)13:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Category marked as not to be deleted

Hi. Could you explain why Category:Terrorism templates in category namespace is marked not to be deleted with {{empty category}}? There doesn't seem to be any documentation. Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like this is a maintenance category that is supposed to be used to identify templates that have been incorrectly created in the wrong namespace; presumably, once they are identified, they are going to be fixed, so that most of the time the category should be empty. Granted, I have no particular knowledge about why this category was set up or how it is supposed to be populated; I was just trying to figure out the purpose based on the title and the content of the page. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It has no links. I think it's likely deprecated. Do you think it can be speedily deleted, or would CfD be better? --Bsherr (talk) 15:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

In light of the page history, CfD would be prudent. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Question about bot edit

Are you sure your bot edit to Sidney Phillips is right? It seems odd to channel these through a dab page which is just a redirect to the correct dab page. The bot hit a number of other pages but this one alone will illustrate the question. Thanks. Trilobitealive (talk) 02:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is correct and approved. Intentional links to disambiguation pages must be routed through the "foo (disambiguation)" redirect so the pages do not show up as needing repair, thus freeing up disambiguators to go after the actual problems instead of chasing red herrings. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense in an odd sort of way. :) Trilobitealive (talk) 14:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Some problems with CSD.py

I came across some problem with your toolserver script csd.py:

1. If a user adds {{hang on}} to a page tagged for A10, the entry in the list has "Unspecified" for the reason.
2. I rewrote {{db-xfd}} to use {{db-meta}} directly, and any page I tag with it doesn't show up on the list at all now.

It would be nice if you could fix them. Thanks! — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 22:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Both problems were due to the same cause: the templates {{Db-a10}} and {{Db-xfd}} were not in the list of speedy deletion templates that the script looks for. Hopefully fixed now. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Tsuchiya and Lufkin Pages

Hey,

I need some help. On the Anna Tsuchiya and Olivia Lufkin pages, different users keep putting that Tsuchiya's father is "Russian" and Lufkin's father is "Norwegian" even though the citations I put down from English interviews they've conducted list their father's are both American; it's like people don't care to read the citation. This has happened numerous times and I'm getting tired of people changing that particular info when it's wrong. Is there any way this can be stopped, because this is getting really old. --Brilliantstring (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on the articles for a little while. I suspect it is just one user committing vandalism; if it happens again, that user can be blocked. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thumbs up!

We topped 50% of the monthly DPL list!
I'm sure that if EVula was here,
he'd give you a thumb's up, too.
- bd2412 T 17:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Christy Walsh

Hi, I had started a page Christy Walsh (Case), as my first contribution on WP, not properly realising that I could simply have edited Christy Walsh case stub into a page, as suggested by [[[Akerans]]]. Hopefully that will resolve my 'teething' problems conflicting with your edits.Diplocksystem (talk) 08:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It is always a good idea to do a search before starting a new article, so that you don't create a duplicate. If you do, however, the solution is not to leave two articles on the same topic, as you did, but to redirect the new title to the old one, so that there is one article with a single edit history. Copying the content from the old article and pasting it into a new one would not be a good solution, because then the edit history would be split between two places. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Russ, I had done a search for Christy Walsh and nothing came up other than Christy Walsh (hurler) and why I started the page I did. I attempted to follow the same naming suffix format (hurler), thus Christy Walsh (Case) so the two would not be confused. Before I attempt anything further can you suggest how I should address what I have already done re: copy and past? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diplocksystem (talk • contribs) 11:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I have already fixed it by redirecting Christy Walsh (Case) to Christy Walsh case, so now there is only one article instead of two. Wikipedia's naming conventions for articles are explained at WP:NC, but in brief we try to keep titles as simple as possible without causing confusion among multiple topics, and we only capitalize the first word in a title except in the case of a proper name. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Determinism

Can you comment at that talk page as to what you think needs disambiguating? Thanks, -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 05:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It can be both

But it's really not worth pursuing. Have a relaxing weekend, Ericoides (talk) 11:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Centuries in the United States dab inquiry

I usually stay out of issues involving Primary Topic redirects or disambiguation template removals but was just wondering why you removed the template from the 19th and 20th century articles and left it on for the 18th and 21st century articles since they all seem to fall under the same rationale, which I happen to agree with you on. Ulric1313 (talk) 07:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Because I didn't notice those other two articles at first. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

FMF

Shouldn't this genetic disorder called correctly? That is to say, it's not an autoinflamatory disease; it's a disorder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.219.121 (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Choir (disambiguation)

The article The Choir (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The page is simply a redirect to the real disambiguation page. It is not required.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

RussBot

Why is your bot making these edits? I reverted this one because it makes no sense, why pipe the link to something that redirects back to the original, looking at the activity that seems to be all it's doing. The MOS linked says nothing about changing these links (especially with ugly | black magic). Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 04:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

See WP:INTDABLINK. This removes the link from the list of pages requiring repair. bd2412 T 06:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't like it, but this specific task was approved and is consistent with policy. I have a detailed explanation on the bot's user page that might help you understand the reasons for it. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ship set indices

Re your page moving: I wasnted to do the same for Admiral Ushakov (warship), but I cannot find a button to click to do this. Please advise. Lom Konkreta (talk) 21:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. BTW, there are quite a few "XX (disambiguation)" and other "[[<Name> (<type>)]]" pages in Category:Set indices on ships and most probably in Category:Set indices as well. I guess this renaming must be done systematically.

And on the second thought I probably don't have to rename Admiral Ushakov (warship), only pages which say "disambiguation" in the title, such as Soviet aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov (disambiguation). What will you say? Lom Konkreta (talk) 21:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• I think that's a good idea, although probably Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) ought to be changed first to remove the references there to "disambiguation"; otherwise, people will complain that we are violating "policy." --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • You should also read Wikipedia:Set_index_article#Set_index_articles and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Guidelines#Index_pages. Personally, I believe that the move of HMS Victory should have been discussed before due to the primary topic clause there. I respectfully request that you undo your move pending a full discussion on the merits. Plus, calling it a list article as you did during your move is false, it is a set index, not a disambig or list. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Please respond at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#Set_indices_under_attack.3F -MBK₀₀₄ 05:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I've responded there again and will soon respond at the MOS discussion as requested. -MBK₀₀₄ 00:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Red sandstone

By-passing the disambig page and directing to a very broad generic page is not always helpful. The Red sandstone page gives a much better clue as to where to find precise information, if desired, than the sandstone page does. Amandajm (talk) 05:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Well

I think I'm going to be 2nd for the third month in a row :) Pretty much of out of things to disam. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 06:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

As always, you have given me a good run for my money! (Wait, there's no money?) :-) --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Well apparently I'm hanging in there. :-D I never know. :) Both of us over 5000 is pretty impressive IMO. Not easy to do. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 11:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Template {{refer}}

I noticed this edit of yours, where you substituted the "refer" template. I've been leaving it unsubstituted in quite a few articles -- should I not do that? Is there somewhere that specifies to substitute it? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's better substituted because it is less confusing to the next editor that comes along to that article. Template:Refer/doc suggests subst'ing; that suggestion has been there from the beginning, although I made it rather stronger a few weeks ago. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit to Micah (disambiguation)

Hello. Thanks for all the work you have been doing. One edit probably didn't achieve the desired result (see diff page).

Prior to this edit, the Micah (disambiguation) page referred back to Micah, which refers readers to the disambiguation page ("This page is about the given name..."). Following the edit, it refers the reader to the Micah (disambiguation) page, which is an unuseful self-reference. My recommendation is to remove the line altogether, or to edit the previous version of the line to read "Micah (given name)" or something similar. Alternatively, the "Micah" page could be renamed "Micah (given name)" and the disambiguation page could be renamed to "Micah." That I have not done any of these things myself is a tip of the cap to your resume. Jim (talk) 18:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• You're right. That undoubtedly was a mistake. The "see also" link strikes me as superfluous, because the very first word on the page is a link to Micah, the name article; but changing it as I did wasn't helpful, and probably means I didn't read carefully enough. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Railway dabs

Hi, re this dab - in UK railway-related articles, the dab is normally to the relevant railway station, not the town; in this case Preston railway station. I've fixed it. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Please dab to Preston railway station, not to Preston, Lancashire if the context is UK railways, as here, here and here. You can use {{stnlnk|Preston}} which has the same effect as [[Preston railway station|Preston]]. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll try, but when the links on either side are to towns, it is my reflexive assumption that the one in the middle should be to a town, also. (Granted, the third one you pointed out doesn't quite fit that explanation; I should have looked more carefully.) --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Project banner template

Hi, this edit broke the template. A great number of WikiProject banner templates have lines in them like:

|importance = {{{importance|}}}

which are deliberate - the parameter named "importance" is being passed through to a subtemplate. Please note the triple curly brackets - this is therefore unrelated to the template {{importance}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Why thank you

All in a day's work. :-D Yeah I'm backing off a tad myself. I've been neglecting my "daily" list (here if you are interested) for far too long. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 04:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Mycotroph

R'n'B, I have given my justification for the disambiguation idea for Mycotroph on the talk page for the article. Please respond to my comments. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Staatsrat (disambiguation)

The article Staatsrat (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I've changed Staatsrat (which is German) into a redirect to the only German state council. The redirect is a) double and b) confusing now.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ospalh (talk) 14:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

...for the invitation. All the best, --Biblbroks (talk) 13:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Law Enforecent in Brazil

I' propose the the full article delection Proposed deletion, ' coz the article is based in bad faith.Before you try to quest my reasons, I have the legal suport of many brazilian citzens.The simple reason of Mr Sparks 1979 be a graduated in Law and a Brazilian Army 2nd LT isn't a reason to that individual write in the article " The Municipal Guards are not considered Police Institutions". The competence to define who is or isn't a police officer don't belong (thanks god) to Brazilian Army or the Military_Police_(Brazil) forces. That prerrogative belongs to: International Labour Organization, International_Police_Association,the Brazilan Ocuppations Code, many Civil_Police_(Brazil) directors, the Order of The Advocates of Brazil (the Brazilian Lawers Board) and the authorities of the judicial power (judge & prosecutor).I f that guy don't respact my profession, Beat it! Well, in anyway, if the article is based in lies, is not my problem, ins a Wikipedia problem, coz the users arround the world still remember the Essjay controversy case. And the article is not based in the opinion of a specialist in Law Enforcement and Public Safety. For a best and more honest and democratic wikipedia, please, consider the proposal.Thank You. --Bryard 22:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

and you're sharing all this with me, in particular, because...? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Because, in my opinion, there isn't neutrality in that article. And I saw a link to you conversation page in that article. So, sir, tomorrow I will start the total reformulation of that article. Bye!

--Bryard 23:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryard (talk • contribs)

He posted the same mildly incoherent passage at Talk:Law enforcement in Brazil and I've attempted to take it up with him there. ninety:one (reply on my talk) 23:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

British Antarctic Expedition Question

As you know, a large number of new articles are currently being created about areas in the Antarctic. a fair number link to British Antarctic Expedition, but appear to be referring to the Discovery or Terra Nova expeditions, as opposed to the Nimrod Expedition which is the current redirect target.

I was considering changing the redirect to a disambiguation page for all three expeditions but wanted to get another opinion first.

Ulric1313 (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I know next to nothing about the topic(s), but if these are indeed three separate expeditions, it would make sense to change the redirect to a disambiguation page. If you do, of course, don't forget to WP:FIXDABLINKS. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Say

Could you do me a favor? Take a look at User_talk:Woohookitty#Disambiguating_.27jackaroo.27 and comment if you would. You are much better at what should be a disam page and what shouldn't be then I am. If you are too busy or whatever, let me know. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 10:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I've tried doing work on the disam pages themselves in the past but I have an amazing ability to get yelled at. :-) So you are much better at handling that. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 04:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

hatnote processing

(don't worry, this isn't a complaint!) I hadn't seen that you had put an expanded explanation on the Bot page, so I have created User talk:Jwy/Intentional DAB Links to explain what is going on to someone who is not close to the subject. Comments/edits welcome. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 20:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

RussBot

Why is your bot making these edits? I reverted this one because it makes no sense, why pipe the link to something that redirects back to the original, looking at the activity that seems to be all it's doing. The MOS linked says nothing about changing these links (especially with ugly | black magic). Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 04:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

See WP:INTDABLINK. This removes the link from the list of pages requiring repair. bd2412 T 06:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't like it, but this specific task was approved and is consistent with policy. I have a detailed explanation on the bot's user page that might help you understand the reasons for it. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to get back so late, thanks for the info. It makes more sense what's going on. But I'm still not particularly happy with the changes. For example, on Thinking Machines Corporation you changed:

{{Redirect|Thinking Machines||Thinking machines}}

to

{{Redirect|Thinking Machines||Thinking machines (disambiguation){{!}}Thinking machine}}

This is less readable, confusing (what's up with {{!}}) and on top of that you changed it from saying "Thinking machines" to "Thinking machine". It'd be great if there were a better way to do this that didn't involve obfuscating the template. Thanks, — sligocki (talk) 23:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it should have dropped the "s"; that may be a bug, and I'll take a look at the script. As for the {{!}}, it is indeed ugly (but only to the editor, not to the reader). It is the only way to insert a "|" character into a template parameter. It is there, frankly, because too many other users objected to having the word "(disambiguation)" appear in the hatnotes. If you think it looks better with "(disambiguation)" visible, personally, I'd agree with you. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 00:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Mário João

Hello! Do you know the full name of this Portuguese football player? Many sources adfirm Mário Rodrigues João, while other ones state only Mário João. If you know something more, plese, write me here. --VAN ZANT (talk) 10:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)