Archives

Note: Archives may be refactored.

As these are generated by a bot, and I occasionally check or patrol the status of these, I moved them to a special archive: /Disambiguation link notifications. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As this page is basically a list of articles, I've reverted you. You might want to consider creating an article on him over. Read our guidelines on biographies first. Dougweller (talk) 16:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'd have to find more information on him to start a new article myself. He should be mentioned in Semiconductor device#History of semiconductor device development or History of the transistor—its on my todo list. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand the difference between the general term hardware that – when it comes to electronics and computers – may refer to any electronic circuit, such as single-purpose circuits designed to fulfill one particular job, and between computer hardware, which is hardware that is part of a computer, a general-purpose (or special- but multiple-purpose) device that can be custom-programmed to fulfill different jobs. Do not simply change all instances of hardware to computer hardware. Thanks. Nageh (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion continued here. Sad to see another good editor retire. – Wbm1058 (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Continued further at Talk:Computer/Archive 5#Definitions of computer vs. computer (disambiguation), and general-purpose computer vs. special-purpose computer. – Wbm1058 (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editing this article to meet Wikipedia standards and restoring it to complete Wikipedia's coverage of hardware retailers' cooperatives is on my to-do list. Help with pointing me to useful references would be appreciated. – Wbm1058 (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Your bot removed a valid although misplaced request. You can easily improve the project by creating the requested redirect. Thank you. 66.191.153.36 (talk) 18:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see. you can do this yourself. Just click on the red link to fecit, and enter the following text to create the redirect page: #REDIRECT [[Pinxit]] and then save the page. Cheers, Wbm1058 (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just found that there is another way to do this. Go to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects (WP:Redirects for creation redirects there). Either method is fine, but you might need to use the second method if you're not autoconfirmed. – Wbm1058 (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but as an IP editor I can't create anything. I'll try the other route. Problem with such pages, in case you've never looked there, is that they have huge backlogs. Articles for creation sometimes has a backlog of over a thousand submissions. Odd that I couldn't find that page, though, so thank you--I knew it had to exist. 66.191.153.36 (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fecit

Thanks--that will work. See the frustrations of an IP editor? It takes two days for a simple redirect, and the ignorance of one editor can hold up the entire process. 66.191.153.36 (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw that, so I helped you out. Maybe there should be an article on Signatures and inscriptions on art or something like that, which covers both, and any other ways that artists have signed their works over the ages. I added a ref. that covers the topic. If you stick with this, consider signing up for an account, that should ease these types of problems. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I would prefer not to. Odd--the German wiki has Signatur (kunst); the best we can do is a pop-culture thing like Signature artwork. Thanks again. 66.191.153.36 (talk) 03:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see, de:Signatur (Kunst)... de:Fecit and de:Pinxit both redirect there. Signature (fine art) and Signature (art) are red links. You're very welcome! – Wbm1058 (talk) 03:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Wikipedia "Merge" like WP:RM or WP:AFD -- PBS (talk) 03:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been sleeping on this, and dreamed up some ideas which I'll post there in a while. – Wbm1058 (talk) 12:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is very good news. Village pump proposal archive fairly quickly. If it does I'll copy the discussion somewhere else. I think the best place to do so is Wikipedia talk:Proposed mergers as that seems to be roughly the equivalent of RM. If I do I'll let you know. -- PBS (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted some ideas of my own. -- PBS (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you were involved with automation of requested moves. Sorry, I'm still tweaking things at RM (I'm a bit of a perfectionist). Eventually I'll get to it, but merges are a big bite to chew and I don't want to spread thin and lose too much focus. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to myself – look at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 67#WP:Requested merge – Wbm1058 (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with {{Requested move old}} (originally named {{Movereq old}})? As far as I can tell, it wasn't documented anywhere, until I just added it to WP:Template messages/Moving#After (potentially) controversial move requests are closed. Although it's been around since 24 December 2010‎, when Rich Farmbrough created it (what I've seen of his work is of highest technical quality), I haven't found any talk page discussion of it anywhere. But some editors have used it—it's transcluded on some 59 talk pages (the last two are my doing). Just amazed that I haven't noticed this template until today. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How Rich announced his new template: diff – Wbm1058 (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC) ...it stayed in the instructions until this edit. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

personally I don't see the point of Richard's template. I would suggest that automating the merge procedure would be a much better bang for the buck than further perfecting the automated RM procedure, particularly as the algorithms for mulit-move requests and proposed merges are similar and proposed merges are such a mess -- some of them have been around for may years. -- PBS (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His template could be used to eliminate some redundancy and in my opinion is more elegant than harej's solution for archiving closed RMs. Eventually I would like any similar solutions for merges to be implemented consistently with the RM solutions. But, yes, further teaking here need not hold up some temporary solutions for merges, since that's such a mess... Wbm1058 (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am missing knowledge of what harej's solution is, and why it is thought necessary. Surly to close a RM one just uses {{poll top}}. Why is anything else needed? -- PBS (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you should use the more specific {{subst:RM top}}. The old and new page names are included as parameters in {{requested move/dated}}. Closing instructions call for removal of {{requested move/dated}}. It needs to be removed so the bot doesn't pick it up, as the bot looks for transclusions of that template. So, to keep a record of the old and new page names in the archived section on the talk page, harej created {{subst:Requested move}}, which creates the {{requested move/dated}} template, and redundantly writes a list of old and new pages outside of the /dated template, so the list will still be there after /dated is removed. Now, if instead of removing it, we simply change its name to {{requested move old}}—or {{requested move/old}}—voila, now we don't need to write the redundant list outside the template. The redundancy can cause issues, when an editor corrects their typo or changes their mind about what the new name should be, they need to make the change in two places. – Wbm1058 (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also just observed that until June, 2011 User:RFC bot created an Automated list of proposed mergers at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log, which were nominated for deletion. Why did RFC bot stop creating these lists? – Wbm1058 (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No idea I'll look into it. -- PBS (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RFC bot's last Proposed mergers list updates were on 29 August 2011. The Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log revision history shows that harej was having trouble getting the bot to "Behave, please.", and about this time he was turning over the bot to a new operator. Looks like a ball was dropped. I'll see if I can pick it up. –Wbm1058 (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bookmarking an old Feature request Pending Approval. – Wbm1058 (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Archived at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 98#Wikipedia "Merge" like WP:RM or WP:AFD. If I didn't keep branching off into other directions, I'd get to this sooner. So much to do. :} Wbm1058 (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Merge/Archive 2#Automation of merge proposals -- PBS (talk) 10:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well duh. The bot was working off of Category:Merge by month, which became a soft redirect to Category:Articles to be merged on 30 August 2011. No wonder the bot's last successful run was 29 August 2011... I patched the program with the new category name and it seems to be happy. Time to file the bot request for approval. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example of what I mean by "they need to make the change in two places": diff. – Wbm1058 (talk) 13:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am rather busy at the moment fixing hundreds of pages that use EB1911 as a source, so I have not been following the merge discussions for the last month or so. What is the state of play at the moment? Has the system been automated yet? -- PBS (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see, {{EB1911}}, Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition – looks like a worthy project. Recently added to the public domain because it turned 100 yrs old? Merge bot is running every 24 hours, and awaiting approval. See Wikipedia:Proposed mergers#Tagged articles. Also on my plate is supporting multiple tags on a single talk page, see #Cannot get RMCD bot to trigger and Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves/Archive 25#Add section title for adding automatically. A solution here can be leveraged to merge proposals, as I'm sure there will be some proposing merge A into B, then below that someone else will propose A into C. Wikipedia:Proposed mergers#Requests for assistance and feedback remains moribund, mostly supported by a single editor. Probably the next step is to change the current manual process there to another manual process in the form that is desired to be automated. In other words a process that is maintained manually in a similar manner to how requested moves is maintained manually when the RM or RMCD bot is down. Then I can work on automating that manual process. Should be easier to do here than at RM because the activity level is so low. Getting closer to that, hoping to get to it soon. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This long-deferred item is still on my to-do list. See Analysis of merging processes on Wikipedia. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I've reserved Template:Proposed merge for this purpose. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Warren (Porridge) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warren (Porridge) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, apparently you have restored the merge tag in Newtonian fluid assuming that it had been deleted by accident. Actually the tag was deleted because it was posted 6 months ago, and since then there have been no arguments for the merge, but two against it. Besides the article has been edited heavily in the meantime, so it is dubious whether the editor who put the tag there would still want to do it.
That said, I must complain about the tag being placed on the article (and at the *top* of the article) rather than on the talk page. Please do not quote the manual of style. (Some years ago I looked closely at how MOS pages get created, and saw that they are generally the work of half a dozen people, who declare it "consensus" without any input from the other 10,000 editors.) There is an older fundamental and eminently sensible rule saying that messages to other editors should be placed on the talk page, never on the article itself. Article-side editorial tags were apparently first invented for biographies of living people, with the excuse that they were a warning to readers as well as to editors. But then other people started inventing other tags for all sort of banal editor-to-editor messages, and apparently felt that for being enclosed in a flashy frame those messages were somehow exempt from that fundamental rule. So now we have hundreds of millions of obnoxious tags that hog the articles for years on end, thanks to a few dozen editors who enjoy creating tags and pasting them by the thousands, but never take the time to fix the articles or discuss them in the talk page. Of course, those are the same editors who write the Manual pages that "legalize" the use of such article-side tags, "by consensus"...
Sigh. Can't people see how ridiculous and yucky Wikipedia articles look with those post-its all over the place? Can't people see what will inevitably happen when editors can tag an article with a few mouse clicks, but it takes at least half an hour of work to remove a tag?
Sorry for the rant but I had to try. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions are consolidated at /Adding permalinks to block log entries. – Wbm1058 (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Hi Wbm1058,

You asked a while ago about how many editors were using VisualEditor each month, rather than the each-day stats that are given on the dashboard. It appears that the most recent answer is that a bit under 1800 editors here at the English Wikipedia saved an edit with VisualEditor during the month of June. This represents about 5% of the people who have (ever) opted in to VisualEditor (most of whom are not currently active editors) and almost 1.5% of all registered editors who made any edit at all last month.

@Risker:, you might be interested in these numbers, too. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I didn't mean to be redirecting articles even while you were in the process of providing links to them! 0;-D Actually it was one of your links that called my attention to that unsourced stub. As you saw, I put some sourced information about polygraph examiners into the Polygraph article before redirecting it there. Sounds like you are OK with that? --MelanieN (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, I just tagged it with template:R with possibilities. Someone could expand it into a more detailed and sourced article about the profession. I was interested in the idea that polygraph examiner "is a lay term for the forensic psychophysiologist". If that could be confirmed, it would be nice to add that link back to the polygraph article, if the profession view themselves as forensic psychophysiologists. – Wbm1058 (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I don't find that term at the APA website;[1] I wonder who uses it? --MelanieN (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm: http://itrpolygraph.com/ – but the Marine Corp lends some support to this: Marine Corps Enlisted Job Descriptions: MOS 5822 -- Forensic Psycho-physiologist (Polygraph Examiner) – Wbm1058 (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding the Talk page errors you reported at the OTRS Noticeboard. As you guessed, most are OTRS issues; I've begun slogging through them. In many cases, this is a boring technical issues, a new agent used the image template when the text template should have been used. It isn't as simple as changing the template, one has to read the OTRS ticket and track down the text in question, so it is manual, not a task for a bot. I'm glad this was uncovered, because in at least two situations, the permission was for an image, and because the tag was on the talk page, not the image, so the images were deleted. I've recovered ten images that have been or can be restored to articles, so you deserve credit for helping with that.

If I've buttered you up enough, you mentioned that you do patrol for these types of errors, so I wanted to report that at least 4 are something other than OTRS. My plan is to make a formal list, maybe in a subpage, of items I have not handled. Some will be OTRS, and the OTRS team will figure out what to do, but some are not. Would you be willing to take a look at:

• Talk:Misha B/Archive 2
• Talk:Software quality assurance/Archives/2010
• Talk:Total Siyapaa/Archive 1
• Talk:Dralkamel/Draft

And see if they are ones you can handle?--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, a couple of those titles are familiar to me; as I said there were a few there before the OTRS issues appeared. I'll get to them eventually. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 13:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting conversation at Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard #Errors requiring attention, where I reported this issue. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, it wasn't always this easy to find {{error}}s to fix this way. See Template talk:Requested move #template:error for discussion of the work I did to make this possible. It's nice to see my efforts paying off! Wbm1058 (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just fixed Talk:Misha B/Archive 2 and Talk:Total Siyapaa/Archive 1. The other two have already been addressed. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sphilbrick: 80 left, Get 'em while they're hot! ;D – Wbm1058 (talk) 15:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks:) I'm working on a summary of what is left, so now I can skip one category, the non-OTRS issues.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found one more:

• Talk:Seasons_in_the_Abyss--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Got it. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, there's light at the end of the tunnel. --S Philbrick(Talk) 19:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sphilbrick: Stuck at 39 left? Wbm1058 (talk) 02:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not say "stuck" but "paused". I have an external summary in progress of the remaining ones. Not surprising, the low-hanging fruit is gone, and the remaining ones are a bit more difficult. I need to finish my summary, identify a game plan for the various categories of open items, and post it. Life intervened, and frankly, it dropped off my radar. thanks for reminding me, I'll try to return to it soon.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Why including headings as part of a template? There is already a subject/headline box. --George Ho (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For editor convenience. See the discussion Here. This ensures that section headers are unique, i.e., so there will not be two sections on the same talk page both titled "Requested move". The {{Requested move}} documentation explains how customized section headers can still be used, see Template:Requested move § Custom header. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've found (err, a beta version of my bot has found) three open RM's which are malformed, e.g., this one. The bot is not picking up the section links for these. It doesn't work when there are comments inserted between the section header and the RM template. Having the template write the section header, at least initially ensures that doesn't happen. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I just noticed this comment, which was posted a few days later, which I overlooked before: "It's nice that there is a default header with such precision, but if the editor proposes the change using the "new section" button and has to leave the section header blank, it's unfortunate that we end up having a new requested move section with no edit summary; there's no quick way for editors with the page on their watchlists to figure out that a move was requested. Would there be a way to check for the bot to check for new move requests that have no edit summaries and add some sort of dummy edit to notify editors that a move discussion is what was added to the page?" I'm chewing on what the best way to do this is. The contested technical requests set up by {{RMassist}} automatically populate the edit summary, but that only works when clicking on a link. Sure would be nice if there was a way to populate edit summaries by just using a template. But a followup bot edit is a good idea too. – Wbm1058 (talk) 11:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep removing a standard redirect and replacing it with a ridiculous, non-standard template message? What policy or guideline allows you to do this? I've reverted you until I hear a rational reason for this bizarre edit. Viriditas (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The template you are looking for is called {{Requested merge}}. Please use it. Viriditas (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: I thought I made it more clear by starting a template documentation page. See #Wikipedia "Merge" like WP:RM or WP:AFD. It's a long-term project, maybe I'll make some progress on it in 2015. There are already 15 other redirects to {{Merge}}, and the Merge bot program has all of them hard-coded, but "Proposed merge" is not in its list. This means that anyone who uses that alias won't find their proposals in the bot's lists. I'd rather not use the "requested" name which is for moves, as the processes may not end up being identical, so the same name may be misleading. This would be designed to be a replacement for Wikipedia:Proposed mergers, or an automated generation of that page. Wbm1058 (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused why you and others create unique process requests instead of following a simple, logical consistency across the project. If an editor wants to request something then it should be simple to find the appropriate template by typing it in the search field. Instead, we see that a "request" or a "proposal" for anything has a different naming convention. This makes no sense. Second, there is no accepted usage of reserving a template by typing "This template is reserved for future use" where the redirect should go. None. Only admins can reserve (or rather, "protect') a title. Third, you have many options open to you, all of which I'm sure you know about, from using a sandbox template (outlined at Wikipedia:Template sandbox and test cases) to using a new template, to making a simple request for deletion of the redirect so you can recreate it. I'm frankly confused why you would go down a route not reflected by our best practices. Viriditas (talk) 02:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I undid your edits to Template:Disputed title. I don't think they were a good idea. If you think they are, please take it to the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I then saw that you tried to do some revision of title templates, and reverted all of it. I don't know where to discuss it. You can start here, perhaps, or let me know if you have a suggestion where else to discuss this. Debresser (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

edit conflictI see it has something to do with Template:Topic links. I noticed you made over 10 edits to that template. And the same at Template:Cleanup-articletitle. You really shouldn't make experimental edits on "live" templates. Please use sandboxes for that purpose. Debresser (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Debresser: Please tell me what you don't like about my edits. "Not a good idea" doesn't really tell me anything. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you tell me what your idea is? What is it you were trying to accomplish? Debresser (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's just it. You don't even understand what I was doing. So, why can't you ask first, before reverting. Look at Category:Wikipedia title cleanup. Does that make it clear? Wbm1058 (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. It is not as though I didn't have a clue. I did get the general drift. Now that you have explained yourself, let's discuss this. First of all, was this idea discussed anywhere? Because if so, I missed it. As for the technical things. I disagree with your idea to sift out main article space only. Why would you do that? Don't other namespaces have title issues as well? And the idea of sorting into 4 categories, however orderly it may be, does not seem to be a major improvement to me, especially in view of the relatively low number of pages (articles) in these categories. Which brings me back to the question if this is all your idea, or if this was discussed? Because if it wasn't, then I for one don't think we should implement this. Debresser (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No not discussed, I was just being bold. It was just an idea I had after I discovered {{Category anchor}}. I didn't really expect this to be controversial. Frankly, I'm a bit surprised anyone even noticed.
• You must not be familiar with Category:Wikipedia title cleanup, because it has always been for mainspace only. My edits today didn't change that (well, it did change temporarily until I fixed it with {{category other}}). You get a lot of user space junk otherwise. I don't want to go fixing user space. The four templates that populate this cat are only designed to be used on articles.
• Other namespaces have different venues, such as "categories for discussion"
• I thought it would be nice to easily see on the category page which templates were being used. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Debresser: Now you can see what it looked like before. It just shows mainspace pages. You can't tell which template put a page in the category. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I used to be active in maintenance templates, standardizing them, so many of them are still on my watchlist. That is how I noticed.

You are right, that non-articles are not supposed to be tagged with these templates (and none are, presently). But to sift them out from categorization is counterproductive. If the will appear in the list at Category:Wikipedia title cleanup, they will stand out, and will likely be dealt with.

I personally do like the idea of sorting the pages into 4 groups, the way you did. I do not think it is necessary, in view of the small number of articles tagged with these 4 templates. A more serious problem I have with it, is that this is not the way to do this. If it is important to separate them, then make separate category pages for each template. Making such a division inside one category page, is ignoring the idea of categories a little. In any case, perhaps raise the idea on some forum, like the WP:Village pump, and see what other editors think. I'd appreciate a notification if you do. Debresser (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

59 total categories transclude {{Category anchor}}, as of 3 January 2015

Auto assessment categories

• Everything that transcludes {{Auto assessment category}}

  41 categories, e.g.:

  • Category:Automatically assessed Canada articles, which seem to be assessed/categorized "by inheritance" more or less as intended
  • Category:Automatically assessed Israel articles, over 600 articles which are all assessed as "stub"
  • Category:Automatically assessed Vermont articles, which don't appear to have actually been assessed

Work queues

• Category:Pending AfC submissions
• Category:Draft AfC submissions
• Category:Stub categories needing attention
• Category:Stub message templates needing attention
• Category:Proposed deletions needing attention

Errors

• Category:Pages which use a template in place of a magic word
• Category:Infobox person using deprecated parameters
• Category:Infobox road transclusion errors
• Category:Jctint template using non-numeric parameter values
• Category:Jct template errors
• Category:Latter Day Saint biography Infobox with deprecated or missing parameters
• Category:Latter Day Saint biography Infobox with deprecated parameters
• Category:Latter Day Saint biography Infobox with missing parameters
• Category:WikiProject banners with formatting errors

Miscellaneous

• Category:Infobox road temporary tracking category 1
• Category:Jctint template hatnote tracking category
• Category:WPBannerMeta templates using custom classes

Proposed new use

• Category:Wikipedia title cleanup – Identifying which of four templates populated the category – Wbm1058 (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wbm1058! Thank you for running User:Merge bot all this time. I have a recommended change: for proposed merger log entries, use the template {{Merge log entry}} instead of having the formatting hard-coded into the script. Partly this is because there is a specific formatting I would like to see implemented (as you can see on the template), but also I think it is in the spirit of the wiki to have as few things as hard-coded as possible. The syntax for the template is as follows: {{merge log entry|1=First article mentioned|2=Second article mentioned|talk=Location of discussion|type=[into|with]}}. Please let me know what you think. Thanks, Harej (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! So you don't want to use the red and blue merge arrows anymore? I'll look into it. Thanks for clearing out all the bot's old pages. Just a reminder that if you remove one of the pages from the log, as well as the log for that month you also need to delete the associated category, or the bot will just add the page link back to the log (the bot just sees that the category exists, it doesn't look to see whether it's empty). I also updated RMCD bot to use {{Dashboard grouping}}. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing against the arrows :). Just that in the context of the specific lists, having that high a concentration of symbols is overwhelming and less effective at conveying the necessary information than using simpler symbols in the body of the lists. Thank you for the reminder regarding the categories and for updating the bot to use the template. Incidentally, would it also be possible to code the bot to actually see if a category is empty, and then explicitly mark its own pages for deletion? That would neatly avoid the current situation of log pages being abandoned and left in lingo. Cheers, Harej (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Harej: The bot's using {{Merge log entry}} now; check it out. I added a third, sometimes used parameter to the template, and fixed it so it wouldn't number every line item as #1. Each of the possible use combinations is in Template:Merge log entry/testcases, both old-style and new. I've put checking for empty categories on my to-do list; that's a good idea. Cheers, Wbm1058 (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great! Thank you! Harej (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	Hi! I've seen you around on The Beatles' articles... Would you consider becoming a member of WikiProject The Beatles, a WikiProject which aims to expand and improve coverage of The Beatles on Wikipedia? Please feel free to join us.
Abbey Road... You're not in this picture... yet! Todo list:

You previously voted, opined, commented, or otherwise took part, at Template talk:Succession box#RfC. Please see a related discussion at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#RfC Congressmen's tenures in infobox. Kraxler (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's really no point to having test cases for data modules, since there's no code to test. Also, doc pages that contain a #invoke of the module itself exist so that TemplateSandbox can be used to preview changes of the module. It's fine to add "real" documentation, but the #invoke must not be disabled or removed when doing so. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Apologies for screwing up the redirects for Ivy League last night. I was trying to get rid of the redirect for the EIBL, since there is a separate article for that, but I did not intend to change Eastern Intercollegiate Conference from a hatnote to a redirect. I thought I had made two edits to make it work out correctly, but I only see one now, so either I didn't do the second one properly or I'm just losing my mind. :-) In any event, sorry, and thanks for fixing that.

2. On the other hand, I'm not quite sure why you put the link to the EIWA on the EIBL page, and only that link. The EIBL is a direct predecessor to the Ivies in basketball, and never contained any non-Ivy schools. The EIWA, on the other hand, is nowadays a separate competition from the Ivies in wrestling, and while it was founded by a group of Ivy schools, it has admitted other schools for a long time now. From the Ivies's standpoint, it is essentially the vehicle by which they qualify for the NCAA tournament. If we're going to put in links to leagues related to the Ivies, we should also have Eastern Intercollegiate Baseball League, IRA, ECAC Hockey, IFA, etc., etc. At that point, it probably makes more sense to either have the links at the general Ivy League page, or else have a category page (if that can be justified--don't know the rules yet.) Other Side of the Creek (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Other Side of the Creek: Hi! I moved this discussion to the bottom of the page, per the WP:TOPPOST talk page guideline. Re: (1) No problem; (2) The redirect I'm having problems with is Eastern Intercollegiate League. As far as I know, there was never any league with exactly this name. The Ivy League article doesn't explain why "Eastern Intercollegiate League" redirects there, and searching that article for the string "Eastern Intercollegiate" finds Eastern Intercollegiate Basketball League and Eastern Intercollegiate Wrestling Association as well as Eastern Intercollegiate Conference. Now you tell me about Eastern Intercollegiate Baseball League, and searching for that string I find Eastern Intercollegiate Athletic Conference, and "Eastern Intercollegiate Leagues" for gymnastics, ski and volleyball. I'm thinking that redirect should be turned into a WP:disambiguation or WP:set index page, as I don't see why basketball or any other sport should be the WP:primary topic for "Eastern Intercollegiate League". The same could be done for Eastern Collegiate League (nobody's created that one yet). At least Eastern College Athletic Conference is a more traditional multi-sport league, unlike these other single-sport leagues. I'm familiar with ECAC as I graduated from an ECAC hockey school long before there was an independent ECAC Hockey league. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I thought about getting rid of the EIL redirect too, but left that because I wasn't as sure on that decision. If any league could reasonably be called just EIL, it would be the basketball league; I have seen quite a few references using just EIL as I have searched through the Ivy League newspapers. However, looking at the articles covering the reorganization of the league in 1911, they all pretty much indicate that the official name was EIBL from that point on, at least. (When the league initially started, the name I've seen the most so far is Intercollegiate Basketball Association, though I've also seen Intercollegiate Association and Intercollegiate League, and you still see those sometimes even after 1911.) So I would say that you're right, and that a WP:disambiguation or WP:set index is necessary. I will leave that up to you at your leisure, because you know how to do it better than I do. I still would say, however, that links to quasi-Ivy leagues like the EIWA and others should go under the general Ivy League page, if they go anywhere. I might start a discussion on Talk:Ivy League and see what people think.Other Side of the Creek (talk) 05:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Intercollegiate League is now a {{sport index}}. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wbm1058
Just letting you know that I have redirected Bhagwan Devatma‎, which you suggested merging, to Satya Nand Agnihotri. The editor has now created 3 pages on the same person, including Dev Atma which is how I got involved, from wp:NPP. I have a strong feeling all these pages may end up being deleted, as so far there appear to be no unaffiliated sources. Regards, 220 of ^Borg 02:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to complicate the issue, there's a pre-existing page (since 2007) about same person under the name 'Shiv Narayan Agnihotri'.
Comments at Talk:Shiv Narayan Agnihotri. --220 of ^Borg 04:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wbm1058! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 17:44, Tuesday, January 27, 2015 (UTC)

Hi Wbm1058. Thank you for your work at WP:TFD/H. I very much appreciate it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

It's improper use of a disambiguation page to have all the "namesakes" on the page. But I did put a see also with an Template:Intitle link for Cheyenne Mountain. If you'd like, we can take this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation.

Really, there shouldn't even be a disamibiguation page for Cheyenne Mountain - there's one Cheyenne Mountain - and people referring to NORAD or the nuclear bunker call it NORAD, not Cheyenne Mountain.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please bear with me, and my proposal will become more clear. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, hanging in to see where it goes.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as an FYI, I did some clean-up on the page, grouped the items, and corrected some of the information on the page... and I just posted an item at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Two Colorado disambiguation pages.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you reverted the disambiguation for Sost change that I made. I looked up page view stats to see which page is the primary topic. Page view stats say that Sclerostin (SOST) got about triple the traffic as Sust (Sost, Pakistan) in the last 90 days. Here are the 30- and 90-day page views of all pages noted on the Sost disambiguation page:

• Sclerostin (SOST), 1629 views in the last 30 days, 4725 in the last 90 days
• SOST (RMS Titanic Inc), 642, 1810
• Sust (Sost, Pakistan), 450, 1565
• SOST (bullet), 111, 304
• Sost (disambiguation), 71, 250
• Sost, Hautes Pyrenees, 47, 227
• Sost, Afghanistan, 24, 87

It looks like the primary topic for Sost is Sclerostin. What you do you think? Strafpeloton2 (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for raising the issue. I've been enjoying looking at the pictures and watching youtube videos of the highest border crossing in the world (between Pakistan and China). Just spectacular. It is really hard for me to tell whether that town is more commonly called Sost or Sust as you can find road sign pictures with both an "o" and a "u". Content forks were started independently at both titles. The pages that link to Sost will need to be fixed if its primary topic status changes. SOST gene seems like a natural disambiguator for Sclerostin, and since it's all-caps it may not be easily confused. I wouldn't put much weight in page views for this case. Wbm1058 (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just caught your addition to the Syriac unicode block article. I think this is fine, especially since it looks like you've been cleaning out the list of Unicode characters article at the same time, but I think I'd put the "list" format under the standard 16/row unicode block template, since the block template kind of functions as an addendum to the lede, while the list could theoretically be expanded to encompass all kinds of information. VanIsaac_WS^cont 23:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanisaac: Hi. I did Syriac (Unicode block) that way, as well as some others, because I was just following the pattern established by Basic Latin (Unicode block) and Latin-1 Supplement (Unicode block). I haven't seen any pages which show both, that show the standard 16/row unicode block template first, but your rationale makes sense to me. Feel free to flip them around if you like. Best, Wbm1058 (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your edit to "History of Science" that undid mine. I was slightly wrong; "New Science" does redirect to "The New Science". However, "New science" does not. That's what I was trying to refer to. I'm going to redo my edit so that it is correct. I would appreciate it if you contacted me before editing that part further. (Decentman12 (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Oops, usually I catch those. Thanks for getting it right. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you may have seen, I posted a request for help at WP:VPT regarding your comments on editing a protected talk page. Jackmcbarn says that he's resolved the situation. Would you mind attempting to submit an edit request for a protected talk page? As an admin, I can't test it, since it will just let me edit the page; I'd appreciate hearing whether the new feature does what you were hoping it would. Nyttend (talk) 03:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that did the trick. Thanks! Wbm1058 (talk) 04:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Invalid redirects, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Unicode characters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ‼ (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out Peace Prize with capitals still points to the Nobel Peace Prize article, while Peace prize without the cap points at the list. I am retargeting the first redirect. Apologies for the interference. -- saberwyn 21:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Another Inconsistent similar redirect that I missed, like The New Science above. Thanks for making them consistent. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, so sorry for having cut and pasted the entry. I did it in good faith and did not know of the move feature. I will use it in similar cases in the future. Please let me know what the next step is that is expected of me. I'm assuming you are going to reinstate the initial entry and use the move feature to correct the misspelling in the first name? --Aliceba (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. We're waiting for an administrator to fix it. See the notice I posted at the top of Dr. Bendson Louima. – Wbm1058 (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The list at WP:RMTR now does not seem to have any 'discuss' links. I only see the 'move' link there. Was this intentional? Perhaps the vanishing of 'discuss' was an unintended side effect of your recent change. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice, Ed. Right, that's not how I intended it to work. That's the "require opt-in", version, and I intended to put up the "require opt-out" version. I swear I tested this, and it was working OK in the sandbox. I'll see if I can get it working as I intended. Sorry, I should have been paying closer attention after implementation. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, OK, I think I fixed it now. I just observed that Anthony used the cut-paste method when the link wasn't there, rather than asking me about it. The idea is that you're not supposed to do that if the link isn't there. Do you think I should add a more explicit note to that effect in the what I expect will be, rare case when the user actually sets the "discuss" parameter to NO?

See my test here. The second line is the live version, and the third is the sandbox version. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first of these three is what we will be seeing in the released version? I predict that that the 'discuss=no' option may hardly ever be used. It is hard to imagine an actual person wanting their move to be performed, willing to list it at RMTR, and unwilling to participate in a full discussion. I would be against adding more software support for such an implausible option. If you want to preserve this example as a test case somewhere, it would be useful to display somewhere the unexpanded source showing what parameters were passed to RMassist. EdJohnston (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, This 'discuss=no' option, which I agree will hardly ever be used, is my response/accommodation based on the discussion at WT:RM#Automated mishandling of a request and my followup in the next section WT:RM#Smoothing the transition from technical to contested requests. I'm not sure how I should proceed. I haven't gotten feedback from anyone else on that talk page. The lack of willingness to compromise has turned this into a big time sink for me, and I'm getting frustrated with that. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this parameter was added by my last edit, and is documented at Template:RMassist. If I remove it then we still need to update the documentation and instructions on the new procedure. I'm not sure I can boldly do that given the objections raised on the talk page. Not sure if we need to start an RfC, or do it some other way. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One approach is to interpret that discussion as No consensus for a change in RMassist. Then ask anyone not happy with the situation to open an RfC. So far as I can tell, only a single editor was unhappy with the status quo. EdJohnston (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just closed one technical move and it seemed to work. Hope you will be keeping this version of the template for a while :-). EdJohnston (talk) 03:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wbm1058,

The Editing team is asking for your help with VisualEditor. I am contacting you because you posted to a feedback page for VisualEditor. Please tell them what they need to change to make VisualEditor work well for you. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and try to fix these small things, too. 

You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.

More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.

Unsubscribe from this list • Sign up for VisualEditor's multilingual newsletter • Translate the user guide

Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Wbm1058, I was doing some edits on Template:Rfd2 that I realized broke the template, but then realized that the fix might be something similar to what you did with Template:RMassist to forward the editor to the subpage in the event that they are on Wikipedia:Requested moves when they click on the link in Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. When I performed this edit, I essentially broke the edit notices if the links are clicked on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion since {{FULLPAGENAME}} pulls the name of the page it was clicked, even if it is clicked from a transcluded page (which I didn't realize until now.) Is there a way that you might know to have {{FULLPAGENAME}} pull/return the name of the subpage (the page which the link is actually located) in the event the link is present on a page transclusion (such as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion)? Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. Steel1943 (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Steel1943:

{{{|safesubst:}}}#ifeq:{{ {{{|safesubst:}}}FULLPAGENAME }} | Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests | <we're on the subpage, do this> | <we're NOT on the subpage, do this>

since in your application, I believe that the subpage name changes when it's relisted:

{{{|safesubst:}}}#ifeq:{{ {{{|safesubst:}}}FULLPAGENAME }} | Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion | <we're on the main page, do this> | <we're on another page (likely a subpage), do this>

Hope that helps. I'm not that familiar with the internal workings of Rfd, so would need to study it more to give you a more specific suggestion. Maybe you can play with it in the template sandbox. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I vaguely understand what has to be done, but not sure if I am capable of implementing it without breaking something more. I guess the way to resolve this the best is if there is a magic word or parser function that runs a check if the page is a subpage or not. Then, that magic word or parser function (I get all of these terms mixed up sometimes) would replace the text "Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests" in your first example. Steel1943 (talk) 02:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Steel1943: OK, I have a test version in the sandbox. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 9 has my "mechanical hardware" test. It is transcluding the "keep/retarget/delete" links as desired. The main page Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion shows "[ Closure: (@subpage) ]" instead. With requested moves, the subpage is always the same so RMassist just hardcodes the link to that. Here the link changes every day, so the trick is to figure out the name of the subpage that's transcluded on that section of the main page. I'm not clear on what the problem is that you're trying to solve. Wbm1058 (talk) 04:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wbm1058, if your sandbox does what I think it does, it solves the problem. The problem I am trying to solve is: After my edits, those "keep/retarget/delete" links produced an innacurrate link when clicked on their transclusion listed on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Since {{FULLPAGENAME}} returns the page name that the reader is viewing, if the reader is viewing Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, if the link is clicked, then the edit notice generated will appear as "Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#PAGENAME closed as ..." instead of "Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/YYYY MMMM DD closed as ..." (which is how the edit notice will appear if the link is clicked on the subpage/page that is being transcluded), which break links in the generated edit notices. So, yeah, if what you did to the sandbox does what I think it does, you just fixed the problem, and much thanks! Steel1943 (talk) 07:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I thought that the re-listings were kept on the same page. I see how that could make the page grow too large, and indeed recall it bumping into the transclusion limit sometimes. So, it makes sense to move re-listings to the relist date, and then transcluding prevents the need for manually updating those edit-summary links. However, now it's a little harder to get to the subpages without those direct links to them. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can I delete a page if it was created in my likeness?!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Actuallyjenniferbanko (talk • contribs) 13:37, 11 April 2015

@Actuallyjenniferbanko: Hi, I hear you. I don't know why you chose me, but I'm happy to help. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Actuallyjenniferbanko: An administrator has changed the name of your bio on Wikipedia. http://www.tv.com/people/jennifer-banko-stewart/ is one of the sources listed for the article. It appears to be another site with user-generated content, so you will need to make a separate request for name change on that site as well. If you want your page deleted entirely, rather than just the name changed, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. I can't assure that your request will be honored, as the decision will likely hinge on whether you are considered to be WP:notable. However, user-generated content pages like www.tv.com are not WP:reliable sources. Regards, Wbm1058 (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments about the state of accuracy in the world on Jimbo's talk page are very interesting. I would like to explore this topic further. I'm particularly fond of your statement, "Society as a whole perhaps doesn't value accuracy as much as it should, and indeed Wikipedia editors should strive for a higher level of accuracy." Heck, I think some kind of variation on this should be our guiding principle. You've really nailed something here, and I think it's worth pursuing. One counterargument to pursuing accuracy, however, might attempt to appeal to the blind men and an elephant analogy. How would you respond to this? Viriditas (talk) 08:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The best we can do is report the truth as best as we know it, and be open-minded to new information that can give us a better vision of the truth. As more "parts of the elephant" become known to us, the more accurate our "truth" becomes. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its at Talk:List of longest bridges above water in India and involves just under 300 pages. Sorry, I thought that this fitted the parameters that were set last time. GregKaye 16:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• (talk page stalker) If I recall, when this was done previously, the bot's limit was upgraded to 100 requests? Steel1943 (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. You mean Talk:List of tallest bridges in the world... Talk:List of longest bridges above water in India just has nine items. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The limit was last raised from 150 to 200. I just bumped it to 300, for the update which will run in a couple of minutes... Wbm1058 (talk) 16:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This request is in reference to the NCR logo displayed on the NCR Corporation page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCR_Corporation. I submitted something on that page put have not heard back.

I work for NCR and manage NCR.com. We use our logo as a "featured" thumbnail as a default when there is no featured image loaded. You can find it utilized in many instances starting here: http://www.ncr.com/news/news-releases. The direct link to the logo file: http://www.ncr.com/wp-content/themes/ncr-dotcom-wp-theme_STRIPPED/_assets/images/placeholder_ncr_logo.png. Can we utilize this in place of the existing (and old) logo, please? Pcullinn1 (talk) 20:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Please let me know if you are able to assist. Thank you.Pcullinn1 (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Wbm1058 (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not objecting to your deletion of my comments on User talk:Mighty Morphin Army Ranger, I'm just confused because you said you were acting on the wishes of the editor. Do you know each other? Or did you encounter each other on IRC? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know them, nor have I chatted with them on IRC. See this thread. That's where I read their request. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, Wbm1058. I can see that my unasked-for-advice was also unwanted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Sorry I reverted your addition of the see-also Proclin link to Sigma-Aldrich. Didn't realize the Proclin page had so little love. I'll poke around and see if I can dig up some other info to beef up the Proclin page or to connect it to other things. My dream is that all of the chemicals like this would have enough info to be their own useful pages. We'll see though. Lots to do. If there's not much out there we can nominate for deletion. Thanks for bringing it to my attention!! Ajpolino (talk) 06:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Funerals and Fly Fishing, 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! Coolabahapple (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's nice to see that I "prod"ded an editor into working on it! Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]