Hello, NmWTfs85lXusaybq,

I saw that you corrected a bad page move with this article. Thank you. It would be helpful, when doing this, if you could take a moment and leave a comment on the User talk page of the editor who made the mistaken page move or other error. A polite explanation of their mistake can prevent a future error from occurring. It is often more effective to leave a personal message, sharing your knowledge of Wikipedia policy and procedure, rather than just posting a general template. Having a message from another editor, explaining mistakes, is less ambiguous than a template message. Thank you for considering adopting this practice. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Liz,

The only reason I didn't leave a warning message on their talk page is that I thought they were a sockpuppet of Skrworld and a spammer (perhaps COI) per edits in Darul Huda Islamic University and Vettichira as well as the similarity of their usernames. I was about to issue a report to SPI or AIV to request CheckUser against them while I couldn't find more explicit evidence after I dug in. I hope this note could help you. Thanks, NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 01:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the explanation. I appreciate it. I hope with editors who are not sockpuppets or spammers, you'll consider leaving a note.

But I was wondering why you draftified Draft:Cil with bar twice. Recently created articles should only be moved to Draft space once. Otherwise, you should seek other solutions like tagging the article indicating its problems or purusing one of our deletion processes. In this case, the page mover has been blocked and is unlikely to complain but multiple draftifications might raise issues with less problematic content creators. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reminder. I was quite aware of WP:DRAFTOBJECT, and I should have summarized the second draftifying as reverts per WP:PMRC#1. The vandal who performed the page moves under misclaim (so is that of The New Order: Last Days of Europe) is not the content creator, but a probable sockpuppet as explained in their block log. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The topic wasn’t discussed for eight months. There are hardly any editors on the page. What would constitute a proper discussion on the topic? The use of the term apartheid is more relevant now as the broader definition, not as the narrow definition as implied by the article title. Should the discussion be highlighted somewhere, or will it take place over the period of several years? Catboy69 (talk) 01:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may follow the guide here to start a discussion for this controversial move. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 01:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just seconding that this move should be listed at WP:RM--it's too big to not be discussed. Alyo (chat·edits) 04:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please dont remove this page. It is for training workshops we are running this week. I'm not sure what it is you dont like about the page, but am happy to discuss if you would like to engage here or on my talk page. However, there are 9 new Bhutanese editors-in-training, with 10 more next week, using this page. Thanks Doctor 17 (talk) 12:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page after the misnomer fixed is now on Wikipedia:Workshop/Bhutan 2023. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 12:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I found it. Was the misnomer that I listed it as an article, not a project? Doctor 17 (talk) 12:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's one of them. Moreover, the parent path of your page should be Wikipedia:Workshop rather than the non-extant Wikipedia:Workshops. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 12:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thankyou :) Doctor 17 (talk) 14:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the reasons behind your mass-RfD nomination, but my experience is that, most of the time, the more entries at a nomination the worse things go. Given that you nominated over three hundred redirects to be evaluated all at the same time, I have closed the discussion per WP:TRAINWRECK (there was rough consensus to do so). Of course, the nomination templates have to be removed, which is why you're seeing ~70 alerts. I'm looking into a bot/rollback option for the rest. In short: I accept your good faith, but, please, don't do this again. It broke XfDCloser. Edward-Woodrow • talk 18:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I may split this nomination into several groups if you like, but I don't see another place to get such a consensus other than RfD. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The venue isn't a problem; the volume is. Edward-Woodrow • talk 23:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The early close is controversial. I split the nomination into groups and reopened the discussion. And don't close it again without further consensus. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You moved Virgil Elliott to draft stage without a reason or explanation. Please do not move the page to draft again. If you believe the page should be moved take it to the talk page for discussion. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 01:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted the move which had mistakenly taken the draft to the project space with the summary revert bad move (which is definitely not WP:DRAFTIFY) while don't care if it's eligible for main namespace. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 01:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is it vandalism to point the redirect for Ksi to the KSI_(disambiguation) page that includes the psi definition? Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Rvv didn't refer to your edits. I was reverting vandalism made by 9-11Attack, who is the spammer and probable sockpuppet. They retargeted Ksi and removed the hatnote on Pound per square inch here. As Pound per square inch has been the primary topic of Ksi for more than half a year, please don't retarget it again without further consensus. Ksi (disambiguation) has been created instead. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 02:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened the redirect up for discussion[1] since I didn't see any discussion in the archives. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Montrose (CTA) (disambiguation), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Montrose station. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:2027 elections in India indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

well done. And thanks for helping me clear my watchlist of articles that pre-dated temporary watching Star Mississippi 12:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I didn't notice your watchlist. I use sql query on Quarry to find out empty talk pages of redirects to be centralized. There are totally more than 18 thousand pages to be processed, while the rate limit on PAWS, about 10 seconds per edit, seems too slow for this task. Thus, I have requested permission for AutoWikiBrowser here to be approved. I hope you could review it. Thanks, NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 13:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with AWB and not a technically focused editor, so I won't be able to approve it. I'm sure and one of the other technically-minded editors will be around to address the request. I'm definitely grateful, didn't need to be watching talk pages last edited 10-15 years ago! Star Mississippi 13:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I get it. You came here from Truist (disambiguation) and it helps you clear the watchlist when the blanked talk pages are turned into redirects. I didn't realize that because my user page is the ONLY one in my watchlist and I thought you were referring to another list you built on your own. However, I'm afraid that some mistakenly blanked talk pages might be hidden under redirects. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 13:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, Truist and some older ones. Great clean up tool Good luck with the project! Star Mississippi 01:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm usually willing to G6 a poorly-formatted disambiguator if it was an error that was promptly corrected by pagemove (ideally by the person who made the error, but acceptably by an intervening party where the creator didn't object). So that's why I granted a few of your CSDs. However, where a user creates a redirect with a bad disambiguator, and it's not an outright typo or anything, the correct course of action is RfD. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:25, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I have noticed that those redirects might be intentionally created by Treetoes023, but I was not sure if they were eligible for R3. Anyway, thanks for your RfD nomination. It's complicated to bundle RfD even with Twinkle. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 06:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NmWTfs85lXusaybq: Hello, Why have you reverted my edits to Muhammad Ayub Khan? Please explain, Muhamamad Ayub Khan was widely known as 'Ayub Khan', not as 'Muhammad Ayub Khan' though Muhammad Ayub Khan was his full name, but is it necessary to use his full name on his article's title? Another thing is Ayub Khan was mainly notable for his presidency, he served as the President of Pakistan from 1958 to 1969, the main notability is here that he was the President of Pakistan, his army identity comes later, however you must explain me that why have you reverted my edits. You also have reverted my edits in Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq. - Hamwal (talk) 13:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you actually know that you should have made a formal request for these controversial page moves since you tried to do so here? NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 13:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NmWTfs85lXusaybq: Muhammad Ayub Khan should be renamed as Ayub Khan (President of Pakistan). I have requested about it in Wikipedia:Requested moves. - Thanks. Hamwal (talk) 13:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't think you have followed the guide here to request that move in a proper way. Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions, a page transcluded in Wikipedia:Requested moves, is only a place to automatically synchronize list of move requests by RMCD bot after you make such a request at the talk page of the page to be moved, such as Talk:Muhammad Ayub Khan, a good place for your case. And please refrain from removing the {{citation needed}} tags in Muhammad Ayub Khan like this before you provide reliable sources for them. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 14:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NmWTfs85lXusaybq: I am no more interested in doing these things, if you want to do then you may do. With Regards - Hamwal (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard isn't the proper place to raise questions about this, while Wikipedia:Teahouse is. There's no doubt that I have little interest in requesting this either, as I'm the one who reverted your undiscussed moves. Since you give up doing so, I assume that you have withdrawn all associated moves. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 14:41, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:2027 in India indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 12:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:2027 elections in Asia indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 12:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you've undone my CSD U1 request for my old user talk page. I was a bit uncertain about whether to use the G7 and U1 criteria in a situation like this, so I sought advice on the NPP Discord channel. Someone there suggested tagging it with these criteria, as it's generally at the discretion of administrators to delete a userpage when requested by the same user, especially when that user account no longer exists or has been renamed.

As things stand, I've noticed that nobody contacts me after being redirected from my old talk page, so I believe it's time to have it deleted. Besides, the SanemAyhan07 account no longer exists, so having a user talk page with this name doesn't serve any purpose. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 10:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For such a situation, you could have asked for not leaving a redirect when requesting for renaming. Generally, redirects like this are harmless and will be kept as an exception of U2 as you noticed when your nomination is self-reverted. Literally, they are not eligible under either G7 or U1 as explicitly mentioned in these criteria and the alternative way to delete them is RfD. However, it seems that Liz has deleted User:SanemAyhan07 under G7. Therefore, you may still ask her to delete the associated redirect of user talk page for you. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 11:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 12:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there- thank you for your help in dealing with the IP hopper over at Brunette (singer). It appears, however, that the blocked user is using a new IP to reinstate their edits. Any advice on next steps? Cheers, Archives908 (talk) 20:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As for any edits of Dealer07's sock ip from Attiki, Athens, Greece, WP:BRV applies to revert them without any more reasons and without regard to WP:3RR. A wider range block of 2A02:85F:F000:0:0:0:0:0/40 has been issued again although that seems still not enough since this sock has been socking for a long time per Drmies's note. If the disruptive editing persists, protection for pages and blocks for new ip ranges could be requested to refrain from their socking. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 00:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Understood! Much appreciated. Archives908 (talk) 01:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, why did you revert my Katherine Hill page back to my sandbox? I believe that I have valid resources and I have a neutral tone. Iceskater79 (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because that page was moved into the wrong namespaces and there isn't enough reliable source to warrant its notability. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 02:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

what kind of sources should I add? Iceskater79 (talk) 02:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to Wikipedia:Notability. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 02:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have twice removed cited information for a name article. Please do not do so again without further discussion on the talk page. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 10:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an article, but a disambiguation page, where references should not be included per WP:DABREF. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 10:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not a disambiguation page. It is an article about a name that includes a name list and a redirect back to the disambiguation page like hundreds of other name articles on Wikipedia. Take a look at the other articles in the categories. You are deleting an article without discussion which is close to a violation of the three revert rule. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 10:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't you copied almost everything from Buffy into that page? Do you have any idea about the difference between an article and a disambiguation page? NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 10:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Primarily because you removed the article from the disambiguation page, including the definition of the name, the last go around. i transferred it to the Buffy (given name) article with a redirect. This is a name article, with a definition, statistics and information about the history of the name. It is exactly like every other established articles that also provide information about names. Once again, you have reverted cited information in violation of the three revert rule when you knew it was contested and without discussion. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 10:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's YOU who have ruined the disambiguation page Buffy TWICE at Special:Diff/1182586264 and Special:Diff/1182634568 and duplicated part of it in a redirect of incomplete disambiguation. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a cited article that provided additional information about the name, which I relocated to the exiting Buffy (given name) page after you deleted it from the disambiguation page. A name article includes information about names and a list of one or more oeople with that name. Take a look at the Anthroponomy project page for other examples. This is contested and you have refused to discuss it. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 10:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What are you contesting? And what's that mean when you say "removed the article from the disambiguation page"? Again, all your edits in Buffy are disruptive and STOP if you don't know what a disambiguation page is. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 10:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am contesting your removal of a referenced name article from the Buffy (given name) page, as I said above. Your removal of a referenced article is contested. I alson suggest you review the criteria for name articles. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 10:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Buffy (given name) is a page of partial disambiguation. I don't see any related information you provided that deserves an article. As for the Anthroponomy project page, it performs a disambiguation-like function while the page you overwrited from a redirect mixed the given name with nickname, stage name and even fictional characters which you copied from Buffy. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 11:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An article about a name includes the definition, history, and statistics about usage of a name along with a list of people bearing the name and links to articles about tgem. The format I used is the same format used for other name articles, using established precedents. It is referenced, just like every other article of that type. I object to your removing it. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 11:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to any cited material in your article. But don't duplicate non-related entries from Buffy and don't link your article into the dab page. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 11:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The general guidelines for a name article do include a requirement that a list of people with the name be included in the Name List category. Technically, the people named or nicknamed Buffy and fictional characters with the name all belong there rather than at the Buffy disambiguation page under the established guidelines for a name article. Take a look at other articles in the category to see examples. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 11:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you really have the confidence that those entries should belong to your article. You may replace all of them in Buffy by the entry of your article like that in Darlene. I will see if there's any objection from the others then. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 11:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If Under the Surface (Marit Larsen album) is the primary topic, shouldn’t it be moved and redirected to Under the Surface? Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 04:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks for your reminder. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 05:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, NmWTfs... I saw your revert at Pharmakon and if you prefer we can wait for the move to be official. I don't understand the desire to link to German wiktionary in en.wp, when the word is clearly Greek? Is there a rule about using identical spellings in the Latin alphabet rather than identical spellings using the Greek alphabet? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 16:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no prejudge on the primary topic of Pharmakon, while what I did is only formatting a dab page with a (disambiguation) qualifier per MOS:DABPRIMARY. As for the wiktionary link, it's the article associated with the same word of English transliteration in English wiktionary as well as links to both a wiktionary article of the ancient greek word and a German wikipedia article, original from here. Thus, I can't see any benefit of your change. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

nope... the English transliteration of the Greek root is wikt:pharmacon (capital letters are used exclusively for German entries). Since you seem to prefer it, we'll wait for all the forms to be filled out for the change of primary topic based on the 100 to 1 dominance in page views plus what any search engine shows when you type "pharmakon". One more week of business promotion won't hurt after so many years this redirect went unnoticed... -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 20:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's disappointing and confusing that you are completely failing to see my argument while still pretend to discuss here. I'm cleaning up hundreds of dab pages ends with "(disambiguation)" by adding their entry of base name at the top per MOS:DABPRIMARY and have little prejudge on the actual primary topic of any of them. Undermining my motivation won't change anything if you consist on that's a promotion. As for the wiktionary link, it should be simply removed since it's a German transliteration as apposed to an English one. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 01:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

SIG Group is after Tetra Pak the world's second-biggest maker of drink cartons after Tetra Pak, with an "estimated 15 per cent share last year" Source: https://www.beveragedaily.com/Article/2008/01/16/Salzgitter-to-buy-SIG-Beverages-unit?utm_source=copyright&utm_medium=OnSite&utm_campaign=copyright

They have been called SIG Combibloc Group for a few years after an acquisition, but have renamed themselves back to simply SIG Group at the General Meeting in April 2022: https://www.sig.biz/investors/en/shareholder-information/annual-general-meeting/2022-annual-general-meeting

Semen Indonesia Group is abbreviated "SIG", but not "SIG Group", because their "G" stands for "Group". It is an Indonesian cement company of only national significance.

So, the term SIG Group refers only to SIG Group, the packaging company.

The best way to solve this seems to be to move the whole content of the SIG Combibloc Group article to SIG Group. With a hatnote for Semen Indonesia Group for people who searched the wrong term. And create a Redirect page to SIG Group on SIG Combibloc Group. Any other suggestions? Should the editing history be included in the move of the content? Futurebassbass (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't move or rename a page by copying/pasting its content, see WP:BEFOREMOVING. Besides, the requested move could be controversial and you are suggested to start a discussion for this move at Talk:SIG Combibloc Group per WP:RM#CM. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Thanks for moving the Internalization (disambiguation). Unfortunately, the content of Talk:Internalization was blanked. Could you restore its history, please? Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 04:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't. Apparently, the talk page associated with the original Internalization is in Talk:Internalization (disambiguation) now, together with the subjective page move. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 05:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hum, I think the old history will be missed by most editors, as no one watches the recently created Internalization (disambiguation) page. Could you undo the swap, please? The one can simply make a new edit, preserving the long history of Internalization. Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 05:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The disambiguation page you created has no primary topic and one may find the related page move and the original page from the edit history, but if you must have the original one back, you should copy-paste your content to Internalization (disambiguation) by overwriting the redirect and request the deletion of Internalization per WP:G7. After that, I will move Internalization (disambiguation) back to the base name with its talk page. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 06:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, your current changes adding {{Talk page of redirect}} are breaking probably hundreds of pages, specifically talk pages which have at least one discussion but don't have headers. See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alissa&diff=prev&oldid=1183642250. Regards, Dan Bloch (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't notice that before. There're indeed talk pages start with a section header and have no templates at the top of the pages while still need a {{Talk page of redirect}} to monitor its change of overwriting. I will find a way to fix it. Thanks for your reminder. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 00:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All the errors has been fixed, totally on 123 pages. A newline will be added after the template in case this sort of things happen again. Thanks, NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 00:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Dan Bloch (talk) 01:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NmWTfs85lXusaybq, I am going through your edits. "All the errors" have not been fixed. [2] [3]. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That caused no error at all. Does it have any hurt? NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 05:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't break the page syntax, but it should have a line break. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "should"? Is there any guideline for this? NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 05:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no guideline that expressly mandates it, but it is considered good practice for readability in the editing window. I am not going to ask you to fix your previous edits, but please try to leave a line break in the future. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I'm doing now for the remaining talk pages. Of course I can add line breaks for the others, but you definitely don't want to receive those triggers of watchlist again. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 05:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I appreciate your effort to add {{Talk page of redirect}} to talk pages of redirects, but please stop doing that. You are unnecessarily triggering people's watchlists for no reason. If the page creator added {{Talk page of redirect}} when the page was created, great; otherwise, that's fine as well. If you happen to come across a talk page of a redirect that doesn't have {{Talk page of redirect}}, feel free to add it on sight. But these mass edits aren't helpful. Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the watchlists. I add that template as an alternative approach from Category:Pages with incorrectly transcluded templates to help find hijacking in thousands of extant redirects that have been frequently converted to article. This task will be completed soon and I think that won't cause much trouble. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 04:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relieved to hear that this is almost over. I count at least 30 edits from you today on my watchlist, and more on previous days. Please refrain from performing systematic mass-edits in the future. The addition of these templates aren't essential. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. Sometimes I have to remove wikilinks of transliteration in about 10,000 disambiguation pages to figure out more WP:G14 candidates. When I convert about 20,000 empty talk pages to redirects, I unexpectedly received many thanks for clearing watchlists. After this task finished, only a handful of talk pages of redirect will be added with this template when they triggered the threshold. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NmWTfs85lXusaybq. I am very confused as to why you are removing any reference to "Saigū" from this disambiguity page. If you review all of the discussion on the Saiō talk page, you'll see that Saikū was never the focus of disambiguity, it was Saigū and how it could refer to either Saikū or Saiō. Numerous sources were provided. The conclusion was that Saigū should be a disambiguity page that pointed to both Saikū and Saiō. Somehow, and I don't know how, Saikū became a disambiguity page and Saigū has completely disappeared. All of this discussion began because a particular user wanted to change the Saiō article to Saigū. If, at the end of the day, Saigū isn't even mentioned, then why have we made these changes at all? PLEASE look at the discussions on the Saiō page. The whole point of the disambiguity was to define Saigū. With it being completely absent, there's no longer any point to this disambiguity page at all. As it stands, we've just made wikipedia more confusing and less accurate with these changes. It felt like the discussion came to a logical conclusion, and then the implementation was just random madness. Ka-ru (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After reading all of related discussions there, I can sympathize what you tried to do to resolve this mess. However, as WP:DABREF stated, disambiguity page should not include any reference although you're free to include them into articles or associated talk pages that involved in this controversy. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 02:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused as to what you did here and what your intentions were Saikū and Saigū are two alternate readings of the same characters, so they should have the same disambiguation page. As you can clearly see here Special:WhatLinksHere/Saikū all links to Saikū are talk pages so no need to redirect it to the Palace for maintaining historical continuity, Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 04:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my concern. Saikū may hold a distinct topic as a primary redirect to Saikū Palace per WP:SMALLDETAILS. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 06:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. What makes you say this is not a disambiguation page? --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 11:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to WP:SIANOTDAB. It's actually just a list that perform a disambiguation-like function. A disambiguation page should follow the formatting rules of MOS:DAB and shouldn't include references per WP:DABNOT. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 12:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I've been here a very long time and never come across "SIA" before today. The guideline isn't really very clear on what the difference is between the two. Any advice? --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 16:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A set index article (hundreds of thousands of them listed here) is generally more flexible than a disambiguation page (also hundreds of thousands of them listed here), which is restricted by the formatting rules MOS:DAB and can't include references or entries of all red links. Frankly, a SIA is still an article and may be treated as a single topic while a dab page is never an article and must include more than two topics. You definitely don't want to reclassify all of them in either way. Besides, I bet you're not familiar with Broad-concept articles either. If so, please also refer to WP:CONCEPTDAB. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 06:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I've noticed you're very active fixing citations and reference lists. Have you tried the oabot tool? I'd love to hear about your experience doing some edits with it. There are new suggested edits in the queue. Nemo 21:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC) P.s.: This talk page's editnotice is using the pre-2010 version of the Wikipedia logo.[reply]

Hello, NmWTfs85lXusaybq,

I was looking at PRODs with errors, at User:DumbBOT/ProdSummary#Failed to parse, and it seems like some of them are articles you tagged with a timestamp that caused the bot interprete them as proposed deletions. Could you please fix these pages as they are not actually proposed deletions? And I recommend not dating article tags with a timestamp, just use month and year. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Liz, as I didn't realize the parse of summary by DumbBOT. Their deletion are actually automatically proposed by {{One other topic}} after 2 years from the code I recently inserted. I have no idea how to implement that without substitution which is how {{One other topic}} generally works. The only alternative way I can come up with is G6, while I'm not sure if the nominations are really eligible. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 06:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They're not (see my comments reverting the template) and they really need to be prodded one at a time rather than automatically, if for no other reason than that they may have been prodded or deleted before. —Cryptic 17:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cryptic: What do you mean by one at a time? The rationale is quite the same and prods could be done with tools like WikiBrowser, if the implementation in {{One other topic}} isn't preferred. However, I don't see how g14 explicitly forbids the case of expired WP:ONEOTHER. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 23:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

G14 is specifically for disambigs with not enough bluelinks, and specifies a maximum of one link if the page ends in " (disambiguation)", zero otherwise. If you want some subset of disambigs with two links to be speedyable too, you have to go get consensus for that at WT:CSD.

Using tools is ok, so long as there's a human in the loop. Making a template do it after some period of time isn't - it's the reponsibility of the person applying the prod tag to make sure a page is eligible to be prodded.

And your attempt to ping me didn't work. The userpage link has to be added in the same edit as a new, signed comment, not a change to an existing one. (There's some other requirements that break pinging less often. See WP:MENTION.) —Cryptic 23:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I couldn't figure out what the hell was wrong with them or why they weren't working right either. Thanks for pitching in. jp×g🗯️ 03:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Deleted to make way for page move has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 23 § Deleted to make way for page move until a consensus is reached. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had missed the first warning, but got a bot alert that you had marked Michael Mansell (disambiguation) for WP:PROD. I've added a third person, but wonder if it could just be merged to Mansell anyway - what do you think? That list is less than a screenfull. Cheers, Scott Davis ^Talk 10:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great solution. As you didn't properly start a discussion at Talk:Mansell for this merge, I will finish it straightway. Thanks, NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 11:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NmWTfs85lXusaybq,

Please do not mass-tag articles for Proposed deletion (or actually any form of deletion). On any given day, there are about 10-30 articles that are tagged as PRODs but because of your activities, Category:Proposed deletion as of 23 November 2023 lists 232 articles! There just two admins who usually review each article to make sure that it is eligible for a proposed deletion and this is quite a heavier workload than usual.

Now, I'm not saying that these pages shouldn't be deleted and I'm not advising you to untag them. It's just, if you take on another project like this, it would be great if you could limit yourself to, say, a dozen tagged articles/day over several days or a week. That would be great as each article has to be individually reviewed and we are all just volunteers. Thank you for all of your contributions on the project, they are appreciated! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:04, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from KHW (disambiguation), which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Nijika・🥁・📐 00:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from BBZ (disambiguation), which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Nijika・🥁・📐 00:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for working on disambiguation pages. You seem a bit confused, as there have been tags added to hundreds of articles saying there are only 2 topics, when there are more than 2 topics. You may not be familiar with MOS:DABRL and MOS:DABMENTION. If there are more than 2 topics - regardless of whether each have their own individual articles, as long as the page shows where mentions of these people/things are, this tag does not apply. Also with an edit of 'merge' implies that a merge discussion has taken place, and actually you are just overwriting pages unilaterally. Please stop this. Boleyn (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite aware of those guidelines. The topics shares with the same article could still be simply replaced with one hatnote, let alone when all the topic is covered, that is how the disambiguation should be replaced by the redirect. Please refer to WP:NAMELIST for this case. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NmWTfs85lXusaybq, @Boleyn: WP:NAMELIST only refers to the question of whether the various people named Gilbert Affleck should or should not be listed individually on the dab page for Gilbert or for Affleck, so is irrelevant to the AfDs I have seen you nominate for Thomas Ainsworth (disambiguation) and Gilbert Affleck (disambiguation). These are both useful dab pages which include the dates for the various name-holders and help a reader, or an editor, disentangle the various name-holders on whom we have some information (even if only that they held such-and-such a title) in the encyclopedia. This is more than could reasonably be included in a hatnote, so the dab pages are valid and useful. PamD 09:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain if there is a problem or whether i just did not move it in the correct format Page is David Henry(actor)

Thanks if you could please explain why you moved or deleted it?

regards,

User: tobyturnbull2023 Tobyturnbull2023 (talk) 03:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it back to your sandbox as it evidently doesn't belong to Wikipedia namespace. You may moved it to draft namespace instead. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 04:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for your swift reply. I believe I have moved this correctly now to the draft namespace. Can you confirm its in correct namespace now?

Draft: David Henry (actor) Tobyturnbull2023 (talk) 05:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm fine with it. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 07:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou sounds great!! Tobyturnbull2023 (talk) 09:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey in terms of progressing the Page now to be fully posted as a wiki page outside of draft, is that just a case of people reviewing it and then me rectifying things until its ready. So, I guess I am asking do I just wait on it now for more feedback. There is nothing more I can do right, is that correct? It will eventually be progressed out of the draft state by moderators?? Tobyturnbull2023 (talk) 23:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may follow WP:AFCREVIEW to submit your draft for review now. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NmWTfs85lXusaybq,

Just another message. I came across some User pages and noted that when you tagged some articles for PRODs, you didn't inform the page creators with a talk page notice. This is an important step in the deletion process, especially for PRODs because editors have the ability to address problems and untag these pages.

In the future, please inform the page creator for every single page you tag for deletion. It's just the considerate thing to do and if you use Twinkle to tag pages, that editing tool will take care of the notifications for so it's no extra work. Please consider this request seriously, especially if you have any other mass-tagging projects in mind. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't use Twinkle to tag those pages and FastilyBot will always leave a single PROD notification that includes all related nominations on their user page anyway. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 06:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found Fastily Bot to be 100% reliable. It's better for an editor to take care of notifications than rely on a bot. I also thought you should look at User:DumbBOT/ProdSummary#Date mismatch which lists all of your PROD taggings. Apparently, you cut and pasted the same PROD tag on all of these disambiguation pages that had a different time stamp (09:41 UTC) than the time you actually tagged the article (17:34 UTC). Again, if you use Twinkle then DumbBOT won't have a problem because the time stamp on the PROD tag will be in agreement with the time you tag the article for proposed deletion. I guess you can take this tagging project as a learning experience. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you helped previously or were involved in an article and redirect and disambiguation move that i was also involved in. The article title, The Capitalist Manifesto is now ready to be a redirect instead to The Capitalist Manifesto (disambiguation) and the current article that is now going to The Capitalist Manifesto should now instead be moved to The Capitalist Manifesto (1958 book). If i need to do anything to help with this, please just let me know and i will ask at the Teahouse. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may request a controversial move at Talk:The Capitalist Manifesto per WP:RM#CM. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

done. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed its format to abide by WP:RMPM. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 01:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i am not used to making this request, i appreciate your assistance. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was created by User:Aviram7, so how come the acceptance notice was sent to a non-existent user? I am cofused if it's some kind of malfunction. zoglophie^•talk• 15:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article title is mistakenly used as the parameter of {{subst:submit|username}} in Special:Diff/1187957102. As you didn't fixed it before you accepted this draft with AFCH tool, the notification automatically went to the talk page of a non-existent user. I have seen this kind of pages created by reviewers many times. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are ignoring WP:BRD as well as my stated reasoning. It is uncollegial. I know what G14 says. It should be ignored. The interwiki links on most of those article are helpful and, in my opinion, constitute valid blue links (ad interim). Srnec (talk) 16:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An interwiki link doesn't count as a blue link in MOS:DABRED, let alone MOS:DABMENTION (although I generally don't care about DABMENTION too much). Please also refer to Wikipedia:Disambiguation#cite_ref-6 about the valid entry with an interwiki link. What do you mean by G14 should be ignored while even accused me of ignoring BRD? NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I was engaged in an old-fashioned attempt to do bot work by hand! --Plumber (talk) 01:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it hasn’t been stressful to you having that weird attack on you by that guy. Your edits were all in the right imo. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 02:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I admire the work you do on disambiguation pages, but please consider cleaning up in the future. There is now a massive backlog of "X (disambiguation)" redirects that need to be G14'ed and pages to be moved. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I have been discouraged from mass CSD or PROD nominations while I appreciate if an admin would indorse BLANKANDREDIRECT of these PRIMARYRED dabs and delete associated INTDABLINK redirects per G14. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 02:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a plan to deal with this? I wonder if one could nominate a few at a time until they are all gone. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the pages you dealt with like Rivnopil and Novodanylivka, there's really a chance for them to be converted to SIA, in which case the INTDABLINK redirects is harmless to be kept. When in doubt, they are never eligible for speedy deletion. I won't get involved in edit warring any more on this and will leave it to reviewers instead. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 05:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for pointing out that redirects shouldn't have talk pages - they're not very discoverable. However, their edit history is even less so.

Next time when you centralize text, I suggest copying it to its new location before deleting it from its original page - this way you're less likely to misplace it by accident. Introt (talk) 16:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good day! What is your relist here trying to accomplish? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a clear consensus there. Thus I will leave it a chance before its close as no consensus. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you could see the consensus for the move review was to overturn. Only 1 !vote to overturn was explicitly to return to the old title. The other was for Mike Johnson (speaker), and the third didn't specify. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move review is not a do-over of the WP:RM discussion but is an opportunity to correct errors in the closing process. It's convincing that your close is problematic per WP:BARTENDER based on comments in MR: a "WP:PRIMARYTOPIC"-ish disambiguator hasn't been established as a rough consensus in the RM and a participant like Steel1943 didn't have the chance to oppose it explicitly before your close. Besides, only one of the arguments of endorsement actually mentioned the issue of PDAB, which wasn't clarified even in your close comment. A RM without consensus for its target will end in no consensus while a MR without preference where it should be overturned will be overturned to the original title. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I'm confused as to why you changed the disambiguation into a redirect for this page. Despite not having its own page, the Colorado school of the same name should (imo) still get a mention rather than just redirecting straight to the Arizona school. If anything, a redirect just confuses people looking for the Colorado school.

I'm still relatively new to editing so let me know if I messed something up (I couldn't find anything on WP:DISAMBIG for this specific scenario). If not, I think we should change it back to its previous version. Thanks in advance! Marcus6276 (talk) 04:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yuma High School (Colorado) doesn't have any incoming links. To build a valid topic in dab, the entry should at least have a blue link which contains the red one per MOS:DABRED. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 04:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the response! Hope you have a good rest of your day. Marcus6276 (talk) 00:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

is there a reason you replaced the article on the Samsung Galaxy A21 with a non-functioning redirect? The article existed prior to my edit and I restored it since it's more useful than a redirect. RM12 (talk) 11:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The same reason as how it got blanked and redirected previously: it's still virtually unreferenced. You haven't added any reliable sources here. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 23:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I deliberately left those pages as redlinks; they're redundant and unnecessary, as all the styles from them have been incorporated into other stylesheets (primarily Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/master.css) and shouldn't be getting invoked by anything. jp×g🗯️ 01:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm have no preference on it, although their transclusions such as that of {{Signpost/snippet/sandbox/styles.css}} in Template:Signpost/snippet/sandbox should have been fixed anyway. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 04:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, Why are you labelling pages such as Thomas Ainsworth (disambiguation) (and many more, I see) as WP:Set index articles?s The items are not related except by sharing a name, but the pages are valid disambiguation pages. I'm genuinely puzzled. I reverted that one as he's on my watchlist, and no-one mentioned SIA in the AfD, but I see a lot of others in your contribs list. PamD 06:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever read anthroponymy articles like Morgenstern (surname)? They are undoubtedly SIAs. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 07:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But name dab pages like this are not the same as surname pages. Look at the definition of an SIA. PamD 08:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a list of notable items. Please also read Wikipedia:Set_index_articles#Common_selection_criteria. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 08:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:PamD is correct. A set index article lists things of a type. It is long-established that this is inapplicable to individual human beings who happen to share a combination of given name and surname. BD2412 T 13:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For given name and surname lists, please replace dab projects with {{Anthroponymy | class=list | importance=NA}} Clarityfiend (talk) 15:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to disambiguation pages are overall correct, but you are making a few too many disambiguation pages into SIAs. Some of them are clearly disambiguation pages for ambiguous titles. BD2412 T 21:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was cleaning up 67 pages filtered in quarry:query/74160, and I had to make a choice since they were categorized both in Category:All disambiguation pages and Category:All set index articles. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I would suggest taking a set of those to Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation to discuss. There may be cases where an article can have both tags (e.g., where a subset of listed links fall within a set index description). Probably shouldn't be the case, but it never hurts to put things in front of a broader set of eyes. BD2412 T 00:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Renamed user g5s6n3yi8z7g08cs, we need experienced volunteers.

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, it basically boils down to checking CSD, notability, and title). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions. You can apply for the user-right HERE.
• If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message at the reviewer's discussion board.
• Cheers, and hope to see you around.

Sent by NPP Coordination using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edits like this break the redirect. Also, we don't normally WikiProject-tag talk page redirects.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  10:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed all 442 instances I found.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. I haven't realized that before. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 11:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per my edit summary restoring the dab template, whether this is really ambiguous is debatable, but a page that has "(disambiguation)" in the title must be a disambiguation page, and therefore can not be an SIA. This particular page is at this title pursuant to consensus in a previous discussion. BD2412 T 15:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page itself could be a SIA as long as they are renamed as "List of XXXs named YYY", see WP:SETNOTDAB. As for all the SIAs end with "(disambiguation)", please refer to the query. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 15:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MALPLACED doesn't give a reason for History of Christianity in Ukraine to be the target of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church redirect; I'm wondering why you think it's a more appropriate target than Ukrainian Orthodox Church (disambiguation)? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 12:38, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MALPLACED does give the reason why Ukrainian Orthodox Church (disambiguation) can't be a target of Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Besides, the recent RfD was closed with no consensus, while the unilateral retargeting is not warranted at all. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 17:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Thanks for cleaning up the mess I made. Could you instead just delete the two page I moved? User:Biz/Old and User:Biz/Interim? Biz (talk) 04:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CSD G7 nominated. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 05:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]