User talk:R'n'B/Archive 17

Preparing to de-disambiguate chemical and molecular formulas

Russ, it looks like the proposal to de-disambiguate the chemical and molecular formula pages is moving steadily towards passing. Can you generate a list of all current incoming links to those pages, particularly links going through "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects? The redirects will need to be deleted, and the links made direct. I plan to handle all of the page change-overs and link fixes within the next week after the discussion closes. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• User:RussBot/Chemistry disambiguation links
• User:RussBot/Molecular formula disambiguation links

--R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• • Thanks. Excellent work, as always. bd2412 T 21:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
    • These are all done now. Thanks again! bd2412 T 17:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

A slightly less-belated barnstar for you!

		The Super Disambiguator's Barnstar
		The Super Disambiguator's Barnstar is awarded to the winners of the Disambiguation pages with links monthly challenge, who have gone above and beyond to remove ambiguous links. Your achievment will be recorded at the Hall of Fame. This award is presented to R'n'B, for successfully fixing 2831 links in the challenge of April 2012. Nick Number (talk) 14:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For all your mavelous contributions in our beloved Wikipedia. Faizan Munawar Varyatalk 21:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Ach

Thanks for the correction, I apparently wasn't thinking straight. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 11:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Undoing disambiguation fix edits

Is it possible to somehow have the bot revert all its changes changing Labuan to Labuan Territory? It was a bad move to create the disambiguation page, and pages are now back at their original titles. Cheers, CMD (talk) 10:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary. Labuan Territory is now a redirect to Labuan so the links still take the reader to the correct article. As they say, if it ain't broke, .... --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It may not be broke, but it does increase what is (for me) a slow loading time. Ah well, if it can't be done. CMD (talk) 10:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. I tried an experiment. First I clicked on Labuan and opened it in a new tab. I waited until it was done loading, then did the same with Labuan Territory. If you look at the page source, right at the end of the body there is a line that tells you how long it took the server to deliver the page. For Labuan clicked on directly, it was "Served by srv201 in 2.332 secs." When accessed through the redirect, it was "Served by mw56 in 2.092 secs." While one trial doesn't necessarily prove anything, it does seem at least questionable whether using a redirect significantly affects loading time. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

How did you view the source directly? I'm getting Served by mw13 in 0.187 secs for the direct link, Served by mw42 in 0.195 secs for the redirect, but from clicking view source on google chrome, which opens the source on its own tab with its own loading circle, so I think those are the times for the source code to load rather than the page. My technical knowhow isn't that impressive unfortunately, so I'm afraid I don't know exactly what the numbers represent. It took significantly longer than a fifth of a second to load the source code pages, let alone the actual ones. CMD (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I did it by clicking "View Source" in Firefox, but each browser has a similar functionality. You could also use Firebug or Chrome's developer tools (Ctrl+Shift+I) to view the HTML source. I'm pretty sure these comments are generated by the server at the time the page is loaded, not later when you view the source. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting Served by mw1 in 0.207 secs for Labuan now, and Served by mw10 in 0.253 secs for the redirect. However, before, when the redirect was being served by not mwXX but srvXX, it was at around 0.16 secs, which would imply it was faster. Not sure what the differences between all those are, or why those are different to the time it takes for chrome to actually show me the pages. Who knows, perhaps I'm just suffering from an excess of confirmation bias. Thanks anyway, this is quite interesting. CMD (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Report request

Hey Russ, would it be possible to get a list like the Daily Disambig generated weekly, showing just the newly linked disambigs added over the past week instead of the past day? Cheers! bd2412 T 12:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean something like this? But seriously, what would be useful to you? New disambig pages? Existing disambig pages with added links? The data is available; I can probably give you more flexibiltiy than a weekly report. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me work backwards from my methodology. Usually when the new Daily Disambig is posted, I open it in AWB, for which I have a saved text file with fixes for about a thousand commonly linked disambig pages - usual suspects like "battery", "seal", "swimming" and so forth. If those pages have gone from being linkless to having one or more links, they show up on the list of pages added to the list because AWB will want to correct them, and that way I can see which of my regulars need immediate fixes. However, if I miss a few days, it becomes less and less convenient to get the list of usual suspects for the days that I have missed. If there were a Weekly Disambig, listing all new pages that have joined the list in the past week (obviously I don't need to know which pages have left the list for this purpose), then I could knock out the whole thing once a week. bd2412 T 17:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll play with this next week. I guess the easy way to do this would be to list pages that are on the list on day X but were not on it on day X-7. But then if you fixed the incoming links on Tuesday, and a new one got added on Thursday, it wouldn't be picked up on the Saturday report. Maybe I need to list pages that were absent from the list on any day during the week. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 01:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe an easier way to do it is to set up a page and just add the Daily Disambig's "pages that have joined the list" every day while subtracting the "pages that have left the list". I grant that, from the moment of its creation, the list would grow and grow, but at least it will generate a constant target for attack. bd2412 T 01:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

¡Una barnstar para ti!

	La Insignia de Escritor
	i am very interested joining wikipedia research History & Culture,I hope to prove my experience in a positive manner,I have been active in the wikipedia community for the past 7 years, KhanPakhtunkhwa (talk) 23:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Help with improving a page!

Hello there,

I am a first timer on editing and fixing pages up and have encountered my 1st problem.I picked up a page to help edit with very minor adjustments and someone posted page fails as player has not played in a fully pro league!

I did not start the page only made adjustments and undone the application for deletion from that user.I believe even though the person has not played in pro league for some years does not mean they can't be added to wikipedia as they have played for some very well known australian football clubs.

players page name is german cabrera.

Any advice/help with this matter would be grateful.

thanks for your time :)

Will — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wistolkio (talk • contribs) 14:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

August, already?

I noticed that Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/August 2012 exists already, but it can't be accurate. I see several entries that should not be on the list. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, but it is. Bear in mind that the monthly list is a creation of JaGa's toolserver tools, and therefore is subject to the Toolserver's replication lag. By decree of JaGa, the monthly contest is based on the list compiled on the last day of the preceding month (so that it became possible to generate the August list this morning), and that list unfortunately contains a lot of pages that actually are already fixed because the link counts are over 11 days old. August is going to be more or less a disaster in terms of the monthly challenge, but I just hope that things will be back to normal before September starts. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

I have closed your move request at Talk:Zeta1 Antliae#Requested move and am in the process of moving the affected pages. I assume you will add {{DISPLAYTITLE}} as needed to all affected articles. Thanks. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Russ. Yes I will take care of the DISPLAYTITLE settings. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

UOIT Engineering Students' Society

Hi,
Firstly, thank you very much for contributing, and helping to improve this article. Secondly, I have to disagree with some of the messages you placed on this article; please allow me to explain:
1. "This article relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject."
Although this article does use some primary sources, they are only used to provide evidence for statistics and facts that are not biased. For example: the list of the elected president/vice presidents is cited from the official website of the society (a primary source); however it is a point of no bias, as it is simplify an official list, not a potentially biased argument or point of view.
Furthermore, this article does use third-party sources to verify information, as per the requirements of Wikipedia. For example: Quotations such as "Ontario’s fastest growing university" (CHFCA) and information under the "OPG Engineering Building" section is referenced from a variety of third-party sources such as news paper articles, media releases, etc.
2. "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline."
As mentioned above, this article has a wide variety reliable sources and it has significant coverage. Thus, I do believe this meets the Wikipedia general notability guideline.

For the reasons detailed above, I am temporarily removing the tag you placed on this article. Please express your concerns on the article's talk page, and allow me and other users a chance to answer them, and justify that the article does meet all of Wikipedia requirements. Thank you for your contributions and I do realize that there are areas in which improvements are needed in this article, and I assure I (and other users) are be working on it.
--Danchaudhry (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

DisambRef

Hi R'n'B, I stumbled upon this and would like to know when a reference in a disambiguation page is needed. This sentence in "DABREF" is ambigous once it says: don't, but maybe yes. I ask you this because of Zimmerman, where one ref is a dead-end and the other leads to Ancestry.com, and Zimmermann. Are the sentences "It is ranked as the 441 most common surname" and "This may include racial, ethnic, religious or other cultural variations" (?) relevant in this context ? My opinion is irrelevant here. I just would like to know how to proceed in case I see something similar. Thanks, Krenakarore ^TK 23:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I'm curious what you are reading in WP:DABRELATED that you interpret as "don't, but maybe yes." To me, it is quite clearly saying "just don't." Perhaps we need to make it even clearer.

As for Zimmerman and Zimmermann, for that matter, these pages both seem to be confused about what they want to be. Parts of them are disambiguation pages but other parts think they are articles about the origin of the surname. The surname article probably should be split off into a separate article, and the references would be fine in that article. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 01:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes confusing dabpages. I for one would delete that confusion. As a reader, Zimmerman is there for me to find what I need, not to explain anything. As for the DABRELATED#References I read: "Do not include references in disambiguation pages; disambiguation pages are not articles." Incorporate references into the "disambiguated articles" as needed. The second sentence says: Yes, if needed (But maybe I am the one to be disambiguated...:) ! Thank you Russ, bye. Krenakarore ^TK 06:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The "disambiguated articles" are the articles linked from the disambiguation page, not the disambiguation page itself. If the Zimmmerman pages were split so that there was a separate article about the surname, then the references would go on that article, not on the disambiguation page(s). --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you Russ, even so people may believe that they can insert references on disambpages !! I see now, "Zimmermann" and "Zimmerman" are redirects from disambpages, and the same happens to "Simmerman" (disambiguation). This is where the confusion is. The tag at the bottom of the page says it is a disambiguation page, not a surname (article) page. If people misinterprete what is written on DABRELATED#References, they will mix things up. When people see a crack through which they can insert their fingers, they insert their arms. Krenakarore ^TK 13:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Ted Frank/GA2

Hi. Please don't restore it. It was opened by a disgruntled ip address who Ted Frank has likely had dealings with. I told him to bring it up on the talk page but because I refused to bow down to him he opened GA2 out of spite. I have since addressed his points and he has since disappeared, evidently content with them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I still don't understand why that's a reason to delete the discussion instead of archiving it, but I'll leave it for someone else to deal with. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Templates disam page

Woohoo! :) Thanks. Templates are kind of my second side job after disamming. I created a mess of template categories a few years ago and I used to close TfD discussions all of the time. So. That Templates with disam links page is kind of a combo of my two loves on here. :) --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 15:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Whatever turns you on.  :-) I'm glad I could help. R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	This barnstar is awarded to recognize particularly fine contributions to Wikipedia Kirananils (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Washignton DAB

Hi. I noticed you reverted the changes to the hatlink DAB at Washington, D.C.. You'll notice that Washington is, in fact, the dab page. Washington (disambiguation) is a redirect. Thanks, epicAdam^(talk) 22:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Adam - you are absolutely correct about that. And, as WP:D#HOWTODAB says, "To link to a disambiguation page (rather than to a page whose topic is a specific meaning), link to the title that includes the text "(disambiguation)", even if that is a redirect" — so that's what I did. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 23:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Tim Cahill

You can undo the move here. Clearly Footballer seems more famous of the two, if you insist on web-hits as measure of importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Photonique (talk • contribs) 22:52, August 21, 2012‎ (UTC)

• Which I never have done.  :-) R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on changes to DPL bot's message

Started at User talk:Dispenser#Gardner suggestion. I'd like to get your thoughts on it. Thanks, --JaGa^talk 16:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback on 23 August 2012

Hello, R'n'B. You have new messages at BD2412's talk page.
Message added 02:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tito Dutta ✉ 02:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

AWB edits

Hello, your AWB contributions are much appeciated but would you mind slowing down At sometimes you are making up to 10 edits per minute. HopefullyForgotten (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Empty category

May ask why you have marked Category:Articles needing images with {{empty category}} as not to delete? This category has been superseded by Category:Wikipedia requested photographs and is empty because it is no longer used. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Can it then be deleted? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I did request deletion but there were two objections from people who just looked at the name of the category and not its active use so was denied. Would be good if someone else looked at this.--Traveler100 (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, well, if the consensus was to keep it then we had better keep it, but I've changed it to a redirect since the page was useless in its previous state. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

CBS Records

Because there is only one active CBS Records which has an article, CBS Records (2006), and all other entities that used the CBS Records name now go by other names, can you please make the CBS Records page the default for the disambig links? Thank you. Steelbeard1 (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

No, thank you. I am not stepping into that snake-pit. However, your edits have resulted in two identical disambiguation pages with different titles: CBS Records and CBS Records (disambiguation). This cannot be right, regardless of how any other disputes over related titles are resolved. There can only be one disambiguation page, and the history should be kept intact. Please do not revert that again. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 00:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

How do we prevent the CBS Records page from being used for two unrelated CBS Records articles which the core of a dispute being discussed in the Talk:CBS Records (2006) page? Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

At the moment, CBS Records is a redirect to CBS Records (disambiguation), so anyone who clicks on one of the (hundreds of) links to that title will go to the disambiguation page. The way to "prevent" the title from being used for something else is to discuss the issue with other editors and reach a consensus as to the correct use of the title. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello again, Russ. Thanks for your reply. I usually use the move section, but I found that the title I want to move to was locked forcing me to do the copy and paste type of move which we know is wrong. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello again, Russ. I suggest looking at the Talk:CBS Records page again as Norton inserted a poll asking if the DAB page should be "CBS Records" or "CBS Records (disambiguation)." Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello again, Russ. Is there a way to keep the CBS Records article a DAB page permanently? Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean? There's no way to keep any page on Wikipedia in its current state "permanently". The page can stay as a dab page as long as there is a consensus that that's the way it should be. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Then can you add your input in Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#CBS_Records_2? Thank you. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Changes of your bot

Sorry, but I don't understand the changes of the catagories for Leontine Sagan: Sagan was director for theatre as well for film! See Leontine Sagan. Regards, -- Walter Anton (talk) 11:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• I suggest you take a look at the page commons:Category:Directors from Austria; you will see that it is a redirect, so files (and other types of pages) do not belong in that category. The bot does not decide what categories should exist and which should not, it just follows the instructions left by the editor who made the category page a redirect. Perhaps you should use commons:Category:Theatre directors from Austria instead. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, R'n'B. You have new messages at SarahStierch's talk page.
Message added 17:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SarahStierch (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Found a possible error of RussBot's operation

Hello R'n'B. I just wanted to point out a possible fix to the operation of RussBot when doing cleanup and adding the {{R to disambiguation}} template to applicable redirects. I found this possible error when RussBot added the {{R to disambiguation}} tag to Wastewater treatment (disambiguation). When I had created this redirect to Wastewater treatment, I had tried to put the {{R to disambiguation}} tag on the article so that it would already be put in the category, but without realizing it, I entered the tag as {r to disambiguation page}}, completely forgetting to enter a second left bracket. However, when RussBot noticed this article not having the tag entered on it already, rather than correcting "{r to disambiguation page}}" and making it "{{R to disambiguation}}", RussBot instead added "{{R to disambiguation}}" to the end of the article, making the article end with "{r to disambiguation page}}{{R to disambiguation}}". First off, yes, I know it was my fault that I forgot the first bracket, but to avoid RussBot doing such a task again, I would recommend adding some sort of command in RussBot to possibly ... first check for any versions of the template that were not entered correctly with the brackets (such as {r to disambiguation page}}, {{r to disambiguation page}, or {r to disambiguation page}), and if such an error exists, replace it with {{R to disambiguation}} (instead of just adding the template to the end when a incorrectly entered template already exists on the redirect.) Anyways, just wanted to point this out to you. Cheers! Steel1943 (talk) 02:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, here is the diff in which I am referring. Steel1943 (talk) 02:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the report. I'll see what I can do, although I doubt it will be possible to anticipate every possible typographical error and misspelling that might occur. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps these are uncommon enough that you could just tell RussBot to skip pages with anomalous content for now and compile a list for human review? Come to think of it, is it possible to generate a list of disambig redirects with anomalous content (i.e. stuff that is neither the redirect, nor a permissible tag or category)? bd2412 T 15:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I think they are very uncommon, but I can probably check for the more obvious formatting errors. However, I can't do anything until Toolserver recovers from its latest bout of hysteria. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Capella is the real disambiguation page, not [[Capella (disambiguation)]]

You changed back all those "for other uses" from the disambiguation page, where I had moved them to, to a page which is nothing but a REDIRECT to the disambiguation. [[Capella (disambiguation)]] is not a disambiguation page, but just a REDIRECT to the real disambiguation page, which is Capella. I am not amused by this nonsense. Please just go ahead and revert the mess which you have created. Your fault, and so it is your responsability to clean it up. Cheers, L.Willms (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

You throw around words like "nonsense", "mess", and "fault" very casually. WP:HOWTODAB says, 'To link to a disambiguation page (rather than to a page whose topic is a specific meaning), link to the title that includes the text "(disambiguation)", even if that is a redirect—for example, link to the redirect America (disambiguation) rather than the target page at "America".' The bot edits did what the guideline says to do. You might have inquired as to the reasons instead of jumping to conclusions. Cheers to you, too. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I read what you gave as reference (did you write that yourself?). I still think this is nonsense, and rather hold up the guidelines as outlined in Wikipedia:Double redirects where it says that a "double redirect [...] pages are unwanted, because Wikipedia's MediaWiki software will not follow the second redirect," and "create slow, unpleasant experiences for the reader, waste server resources, and make the navigational structure of the site confusing." But no, I do not want to fight that out, I just leave this while shaking my head about your activity. --L.Willms (talk) 13:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Edvard Grieg

This page has been persistently vandalized since mid August. Maybe you could prevent IPs from accessing it till things settle down a bit. Krenakarore ^TK 09:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried WP:RPP? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Tibetan languages

Basically, they should be disambiguated based on what the most relevant article to link to is. I think this should be discussed more (whether to have a disambiguation page and what to do with it), but I'm not even sure where to do it. I brought it up on Talk:Tibetic languages, but there wasn't much discussion. Right now, Talk:Tibetan language redirects to Talk:Standard Tibetan, and that article probably has more eyes on it, so I'd be inclined to discuss it there.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 22:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Categories for Wikipedia books on US States

I just noticed you marked a bunch of these categories for deletion cause their empty. I am working on making books for them I just created all the categories first rather than individually so if you delete them your really just wasting time because I'll have to go rebuild them again. Kumioko (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to stop and say thanks for ignoring me comment. Now all those categories got deleted and I have asked the deleting admin to recreate them. If they decline then I have to waste more time recreating them. In the future if someone asks you to remove the tags plesae do so and have some respect for others time. This could have been easily fixed if you would have just removed the deletion tags. I see your an admin so then maybe you can undelete them then. Kumioko (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I was out of town last week, so you're welcome. Nothing has been broken that can't be fixed; oh, and by the way, you could have removed the templates yourself or put a message on the category talk pages if you had wanted to. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I have fallen into that trap before. Some people get really pissy when you remove tags like that and I didn't feel I should have to go to every category and start a discussion, thats why I came back here and left the comment. Your right, it can be fixed, but it shouldn't have happened in the first place. Does that mean you will undelete them or are you goign to make me recreate them all?Kumioko (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

BTW, Sorry if my tone is a bit hard. I have tried being nice for years and I still ended up being the Ahole that nobody likes and I am completely and utterly tired of the us and them mentality between the admins and us lowly editors that can't be trusted to do any but the most benign of tasks and along with that the deletionists wanting to delete everything my attitude is pretty negative these days. Kumioko (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make life difficult for anyone. This is just routine cleanup of empty categories; if the categories get populated, they can easily be recreated. I'll undelete them, but it's not an urgent priority. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your bot's formatting help at the new article I've created, Robert Boulter. Much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 13:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

New sections for malplaced dabs.

Dear Russ, pursuant to the conversation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages#Duplicate disambiguations, can you add two sections to the malplaced pages project page, and arrange for RussBot to populate them - one for duplicate disambigs (where "Foo" and "Foo (disambiguation)" are both disambig pages), and one for instances where "Foo (disambiguation)" exists, while "Foo" is a redlink? Cheers! bd2412 T 04:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Category:Non-empty category redirects

Hello Jarekt,
First of all: thanks a lot for your excellent RussBot.
I wanted to warn you that I did some change in commons that could bother your bot:

• I added a new parameter |reason= to Category redirect
• I created 3 templates including Category redirect:
  • Synonym taxon category redirect
  • Invalid taxon category redirect
  • Monotypic taxon category redirect

With Foroa, we are trying to test (see here) the bot actions on commons:Category:Non-empty category redirects .
Do you have any idea what problem my 4 modifications could cause ?
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 11:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Nuclear power by country

Please see my proposal to upmerge Category:Nuclear power by country and subcategories (4) to Category:Nuclear energy by country Hugo999 (talk) 12:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Empty categories

Thanks. At some point I did figure out I was doing it wrong, by which time I had forgot which ones I had db-deleted. They are mostly sub-cats of Category:Literary awards, probably most of them sub-cats Category:Literary awards by genre and type, perhaps half a dozen or so. Not sure how to find them, my edit history is pretty long to browse through. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Bot issue

Hi, Russ! I've noticed that the bot recently started to create "XXX (disambiguation)" redirects to set index articles. As per the active guidelines, set indices are not disambiguation pages, so INTDABLINK should not apply. I've fixed the ones which popped up on my watchlist; please check the bot logic so this does not recur. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 22, 2012; 13:56 (UTC)

Certainly; the bot is now unblocked. As for the examples, Krasnoarmeysky District, Russia (disambiguation) (which I've deleted) is one and Prigorodny District (disambiguation) (which I haven't yet) is another; there are quite a few more. Thanks for the quick response!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 22, 2012; 14:40 (UTC)

Sorry, had to block it again. It seems your removal of the redirect-creation script didn't take. Let me know when it's safe to unblock the bot again.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 22, 2012; 15:02 (UTC)

oops. I thought the script would fail as soon as it was blocked, but it didn't. I've stopped it manually now. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Unblocked again :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 22, 2012; 17:45 (UTC)

Another day, another list request.

Here is another occasionally recurring problem I have discovered. Sometimes editors will link the full name of an organization or designation, followed immediately by an ambiguous link to an abbreviated form of the same. For example, they might say "John Smith was a member of the American Arbitration Association (AAA)". Easy enough to fix if found. Can you generate a list of articles containing disambig links where a link provided as a solution on the disambig page can be found in the same line (or maybe the same paragraph) as the ambiguous link in the article? Cheers! bd2412 T 17:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I will give it some thought, but the problem is that reports that have to look at the page text (to determine in what context a link appears) are much more complicated than ones that just look at what links (or categories, or templates, etc.) exist or don't exist on the page. The hatnote bot, for example, takes 24 hours or longer to complete each run because it has to figure out where a link appears, not just whether it appears. This request poses the same issue. Which doesn't mean it's impossible, just more difficult.

The other consideration is that this report wouldn't pick up the cases (in my experience, nearly as frequent as your example) where an editor writes something like "was a member of the American Arbitration Association (AAA)", or (even worse) "was a member of the AAA (American Arbitration Association)." Although I don't fathom the reasoning process that leads someone to believe it makes more sense to link the abbreviation than the actual name, there seem to be a number of editors who think this way. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

To be even more difficult, is it possible to catch pages that have just the string of (unlinked) text? bd2412 T 01:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Fascinating. Thanks, well done. bd2412 T 04:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. You noticed that the report had been generated even before I did! It ran for something like 36 hours. I see there are still a few bugs in the script, but I guess you can just ignore the false positives. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 08:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

One thing I notice about these lists is that there are a lot of repeated entries, which vastly inflate the total number of listings. For example, User:RussBot/Neighboring disambiguated links/007 repeats the exact line, James Bamford contains link to Book World near possible solution "Washington Post" eleven times. Is there a reason for this repetition? bd2412 T 05:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

In that case, it's because the article contains a table that includes 11 different cells that all contain the text "[[Washington Post]] [[Book World]]". The script isn't exactly sophisticated, it just goes through the text one link at a time. I'm sure if I spent some time refining it I could weed out some of these issues. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Bot added redirect to disambig page

Yesterday I added a hatnote to Robert Butler (Virginia politician) pointing to a disambiguation page titled Robert Butler. Today, RussBot changed the link to point to Robert Butler (disambiguation), which is itself a redirect to Robert Butler, and then renamed the link "Robert Butler". Why? Rklear (talk) 22:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

This is explained at User:RussBot#About_the_hatnote_task. Incidentally, the bot includes a link to this explanation in every edit summary. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Isn't there a better substitution for American?

Bot inserted United States to replace American - I believe a better substitution is Americans? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that everyone in North, South and Central America could be called "Americans". That most Canadians, Mexicans, Costa Ricans, Brazilians and Chileans don't use it doesn't make it totally invalid. Eh? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Ottawahitech, you didn't tell me the context, so it is impossible for me to answer. Because the substitution depends on context, the bot only makes replacements in very limited situations where there should be little doubt, but if it made an error in a particular case please let me know. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oops, sorry. The article in question was Michael Mastro. Ottawahitech (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Well, that's a tough case because the article has so little information about the person, and the sources listed are all recent news articles. There is no biographical information about the subject at all (which makes me wonder whether the article is appropriate at all, but that's a different question). We know that Mr. Mastro is from the United States, but we don't know whether he self-identifies as an "American". Ethnic identity is always subjective, and in the absence of reliable sources specifically documenting a person's identity, it is usually better for the encyclopedia to stick to objective criteria such as citizenship and residence. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Americans starts out thus: "Americans, or American people, are the citizens of the United States of America", I am therefore confused by your last sentence.

As far as the appropriateness of this article, I started it out as The Bankruptcy and extradition of Michael Mastro which was where I was trying to go with this article, but someone else moved it to Michael Mastro. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

It's quite unusual for us to have an article about the citizens of a country separate from the article about the country itself. Still, I tend to think that "United States" is more relevant to the context in which the link appears than "Americans". Mr. Mastro is a real estate investor from the United States, and he is being extradited to the United States in connection with alleged acts committed there. His citizenship is of secondary relevance. However, it seems to me that readers are going to find the information they need either way. (In fact, based upon WP:OVERLINK, one could argue for unlinking the word entirely, although I'm not taking that position.) --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Minor barnstar
	Thanks for your help with Waddell's chronology. Nice editing! Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 23:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

beypeople : moazzam mirza

thanks for minor edit in Moazzam Mirza article 17:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC) --BeyPeople (talk)--

Creating hatnotes and disambiguation pages

Hello, R'n'B. I was hoping to resurrect WP:Suggestions for name disambiguation or something similar, but need the help of someone who's an admin/experienced with bots. There are so many pages that need to be created still, and this is a really useful tool for identifying them. It can be set to pick up on every little detail (but this tends to get false positives and leave editors bogged down) or to just identify missing entries on dabs. User:Quadell ran it, but doesn't edit as much as he/she used to, and so no longer has the 'key'. If the lists were created, I'd work hard to get the disambiguation done. Anyway, thanks for all your hard work on here, and let me know if this is something you think you could help with. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 07:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Boleyn. I'm having a hard time understanding how these lists were generated. I see that source code is available, but it's in Perl, which I've never used. I'm also not sure how it has changed over time. At this point, I don't really have any idea how I could recreate this functionality. Sorry. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for looking into it. If you contact User:Quadell, he does still edit about once a week and may be able to help. Let me know if you find a way to get it off the ground. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 08:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Persian Empire

Hi, you're actually misreading the old discussions. There was no consensus to redirect Persian Empire to Achaemenid Empire. The consensus was against Ottava Rima's attempt to use a poorly-written article instead of the redirect. Otherwise, Dbachmann, Folantin, Jagged 85 and the other editors who opposed Ottava Rima's position, did not have a problem with redirecting the page to Persian Empire (disambiguation) [1][2] which is the more appropriate target article anyways, given the fact that Persian Empire has multiple usages. Mine and their position was against the poorly-written article that Ottava Rima insisted on keeping, and using Achaemenid Empire or Persian Empire (disambiguation) was not really the main issue, and nobody really objected either way. The only reason why the page had stayed for so long as a redirect to Achaemenid Empire, is because in the middle of the edit-war/arguments with Ottava Rima, someone locked the page, and the last version of the page stayed there, and everyone kind of forgot. Otherwise, I assure you the majority of the people who took part in the discussions and opposed Ottava Rima, and had established the consensus against him, would not object to the redirect to Persian Empire (disambiguation), as that wasn't what they were concerned about in the first place. Kurdo777 (talk) 00:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

What I see is that there was an RFC and an extensive discussion on a proposal to change the redirect, which did not end with a consensus to make the change. If you want to re-start the discussion, fine; but you can't just unilaterally come in and decide what the consensus was three years ago in an unclosed discussion. And, if the redirect is going to be changed, there are well over 1,000 existing links to "Persian Empire" in other articles that are going to have to be fixed first. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 00:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the RFC discussion were not about changing the redirect. If you read the entire discussion, you'll see that it was about keeping a portly-written article, or making the page a redirect. Also, my edit was not really a controversial one, and it does not affect the 1000 links you're talking about. The disambiguation page does include Achaemenid Empire. I made a bold edit, and if any of the editors who were involved in the old discussions, decided to oppose it, I would welcome new discussions. As it is, my edit did not really change the consensus or anything of the sort. It was an improvement. Kurdo777 (talk) 00:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you miss R'n'B's point as to the incoming links. Your edit increases the number of links pointing to a disambiguation page by 1,000. Our policy preference, however, is that such links are to be fixed before such a change is made. If the correct target for a use of the link, "Persian Empire" covers multiple items on the disambiguation page, that is a pretty good indicator that the page itself falls under WP:DABCONCEPT, and therefore should be an article after all. In this case, all of the terms asserted to be ambiguous are in fact merely chronological phases referencing a specific geographic area, a circumstance expressly covered by WP:DABCONCEPT as one "that is capable of being described in an article". Maybe the article that was there before is no good (I haven't delved into its qualities) but the choice is not between that article and a redirect, but between any article and a redirect. Our policies on this point would have something there other than a disambiguation page, because there is some quality shared by all of the links identified that makes each of them a Persian Empire. bd2412 T 16:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

ISTM that such an article already exists at History of Iran, so I've changed the redirect to point there. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

A sensible solution. I think there's enough material of interest to cover a freestanding article, but everything that would go into it is already at History of Iran. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

China aircraft redirects

Hi, I noticed that you just met me halfway deleting redirects from hyphens to dashes for the old categories renamed per CFDW. Are you also setting up redirects for the new names, like Category:Chinese attack aircraft 1950-1959 for Category:Chinese attack aircraft 1950–1959? – Fayenatic London 15:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that too! No, I'm not setting up new redirects. By default, WP:CATRED discourages the creation of new category redirects. Since I don't have any way of knowing whether these are categories that are likely to fall within the exceptions, I leave it to others to decide whether redirects are necessary. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

If you're using an automated tool that could help, please feel free to join in... WT:CFDW#Speedy processing issue: remember the hyphen issue, please! is a recent reminder of a rule for when we move from a hyphen to a dash. The change in these categories is a step away from that, so perhaps they are not required after all. I'll ask there. – Fayenatic London 15:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

You are blaming me for making a necessary change

So by creating New Democratic Party (Canada) and adjusting the re-directs, problems have arose, which you are focusing the blame on me for. So much for the "be welcoming" policy on Wikipedia. Sorry, but someone who had some foresight should have seen that there are more than one "New Democratic Party" in the world - and that person's lack of foresight caused this. So what do you want, for me to undo it, to restore it to New Democratic Party? — Preceding unsigned comment added by R-41 (talk • contribs) 18:20, November 24, 2012‎ (UTC)

Hello, R-41. I did not intend to "blame" you for anything, and I did not say that changing New Democratic Party to a disambiguation page was wrong. If I said anything that gave you the impression that I was criticizing you, I am sorry for that.

What I was trying to do was simply to point out that your actions had consequences that you might not have anticipated. There were something like 2,500 links to this page before your changes, and (based on an admittedly quick review) the vast majority of them were correct because they referred to the Canadian party. On the other hand, a small percentage (let's say 100 of the 2,500) were wrong because they were referring to some other party with the same name. So, your changes were an improvement to 100 articles because the links no longer take the reader to an incorrect article; but they were detrimental to 2,400 articles because they now take the reader to a disambiguation page instead of the correct article.

I was not pointing this out to criticize you, though, but to try to help you to understand the implications of these changes. When a page move or redirect affects many existing links, it is usually a good idea to analyze the consequences for those other links and try to fix them before acting, or at least immediately afterwards. It takes more time to get everything right, but in the long run that is better for our readers.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The last change by R&B(?) has done a good job because he was right after all - there are enough articles on Ismailism already. Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 13:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Minor problem with User:R'n'B/birthdeath.js

Could you edit out or remove the brackets in the following line in your birthdeath.js

// years in other places, like {{Persondata}}

The Persondata with brackets puts the page into the tracking category Category:Persondata templates without name parameter Bgwhite (talk) 07:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Solved. Thanks for the heads-up! --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Meixcan Empire

Sorry about that. I did it because the "Mexican Empire" existed until awhile as an article. I wasn't aware that it had been erased and turned into a disambiguation page. --Lecen (talk) 12:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Multi-bearer network

You added a copypaste tag to Multi-bearer network for understandable reasons, the material comes form a page with a copyright notice. However, as I mentioned on the talk page, per discussion at User_talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive_48#Copyright_status_of_material_on_Google_patent_pages I believe the material is OK, at least with respect to copyright. It is not very readable, so if another editor chooses to remove it, or rewrite it, I'll be fine, but I simply turned it into a quote, and added the source.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

RussBot changes: Museu Nacional do Azulejo vs Mosteiro da Madre de Deus

Hi R'n'B,

Your bot has recently redirected the category commons:Category:Museu Nacional do Azulejo to commons:Category:Mosteiro da Madre de Deus in some of my pictures (e.g. here). I don't think it is a good idea to merge the two categories. Although the Museu Nacional do Azulejo (National Museum of the Azulejo) is located in the building of the Monastery of Madre de Deus, the tiles exhibited there have nothing to do with the monastery. The correct way to categorize the tiles is with the category commons:Category:Museu Nacional do Azulejo, leaving the features having to do only with the building (e.g. the church or the small cloister) with the category commons:Category:Mosteiro da Madre de Deus. What do you think? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion. The bot does not decide which categories should be redirected; it just follows the {{category redirect}} templates inserted on category pages by other users. If you think the redirect on commons:Category:Museu Nacional do Azulejo should be changed, you can either make a bold change yourself, or discuss it on the category's talk page. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I will remove the redirect. 89.154.246.231 (talk) 13:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Skycity (disambiguation)

A tag has been placed on Skycity (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
• disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

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

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you made a mistake. This is not a disambiguation page, it is a redirect to a disambiguation page. When you moved the target disambiguation page to a different title, you should have changed the redirect to point to the new target, instead of tagging it for deletion. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I still believe what I did was the correct thing to do. The article 'Skycity' itself now goes directly to 'Sky City', leaving no use for a 'Skycity (disambiguation)', than a 'Sky City (disambiguation)', which now did exist. So I nominated the page for deletion. If there was some policy I mistook or anything, please tell me. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Comparison of media players

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Comparison of media players § WP:DABCONCEPT violation. Codename Lisa (talk) 05:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Ongjin County

Hi. You edited Ongjin County. The page is being discussed at Talk:Sinyang, South Pyongan. Sawol (talk) 11:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Skycity (disambiguation)

A tag has been placed on Skycity (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
• disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

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

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? (A) You are nominating the page for speedy deletion under a criteria that says "this is an orphaned disambiguation page" but the page you are nominating is not a disambiguation page, it is a redirect. (B) You did this once before and I removed the speedy deletion tag. Repeating an action you know to be controversial is abusive. Please stop; if you insist on deleting this, take it to RFD. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

A) I did not know I was placing it under the wrong category - The category looked good enough to me when I nominated it. I did state why I was nominating it, and did not get any reply that I was wrong. B) A page's original contributor CANNOT remove a CSD. So I was completely entitled to re-add the CSD.

And I shall be taking it to RFD. Thanks. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh and CSD is for non-controversial deletions. Since the page move, it had become quite redundant a page. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I doubt that other users commenting on the RFD will consider this a non-controversial deletion. There is a strong presumption in favor of keeping redirects unless they are erroneous or misleading, and I can't see how either of those would apply here. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not know that. My opinion was that since the page was redundant as a redirect, we ought to remove it. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)