Dispute resolution clause: By posting on my user talk page, you agree to resolve all disputes that may arise from your interactions with me through the dispute resolution processes offered within the Wikipedia Community. BD2412
The thing is, I deal with pretty much everything to do with Tracy Beaker daily, not because I use wikipedia, but in all honesty, I love the show. But there is always vandalism and we get several unnecessary pages created, that's why.
I'm going to try and use this franchise page because on reflection, I think I could get some use out of it, but we need the disambiguation page too because we have several pages with Tracy Beaker in. Can you close the articles for deletion because as I write this, I'm working on the franchise page. Grangehilllover (talk) 11:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
You misunderstand the purpose of a disambiguation page. It is to house unrelated terms that happen to have the same meaning, not for listing different runs of a show. Perhaps a set index article would be appropriate here (see Wikipedia:Set index articles), but not a disambiguation page. Compare, e.g. Mario Bros.bd2412T 11:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I'll get back to you in a bit if that's OK. Grangehilllover (talk) 12:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
No problem. I am only available on a limited basis now myself. bd2412T 13:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
@BD2412: I'm improving the franchise page and renamed it to The Story of Tracy Beaker (franchise) as that is where the franchise originated from as Tracy Beaker is the name of the [[Tracy Beaker|lead character}}. By the way, I don't have a clue what a set index is, but is it possible we could just...leave it? Grangehilllover (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
A set index is a list of related topics. A disambiguation page is a list of unrelated topics that share the same name, like the horn of a rhinoceros and the horn in a musical ensemble, or a battery used to run electronics, and a battery as a group of artillery pieces. I don't see anything to be left as is on a disambiguation page. bd2412T 15:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
OK. It's a bit confusing to understand. Grangehilllover (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Completion of Presidential judicial appointment lists
Just noting that I have completed all the Presidential judicial appointment lists, ending with George Washington. I made Washington's article comprehensive, by adding his judicial appointments to Article IV territorial courts. Safiel (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
You, sir, are a god among men. bd2412T 18:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Do you think this slightly tacky idea might work? Create the needed article with only some "Lorem ipsum" nonsense; edit Wikidata to link to it; then {{db-author}} the Wiki article to get rid of it and turn the link red. Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, if you're going to create the article at that title, at least create an actual stub from the information we have handy, e.g., at Johan Svensson (cyclist), "Johan Svensson is a cyclist on the list of Mitsubishi–Jartazi rosters". bd2412T 16:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I had already come round to your way of thinking; and, further, that the best approach is to write a stub, tagged if necessary as {{BLP unreferenced}}. I have written up Johan Svensson (cyclist), with more than enough citations to hold it in place; but still can't edit Wikidata, so that list of Mitsubishi–Jartazi rosters still links to the DAB page. If a bot doesn't create a Wikidata entry which I can link within the next 24 hours: time to complain again, I think. Narky Blert (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Wikidata does not immediately update the data in Wikipedia. There are two options. Make a "zero edit" - that is, click edit and immediately save without making any changes. Or clear the cache. — GAN (talk) 23:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
@GAN: I knew the WP:NULLEDIT trick, and had used it. In this instance, the change has now taken effect, but it took the best part of an hour to do so. Not good! This exercise has wasted both my time and that of BD2412. Please sort this problem out once and for all. Narky Blert (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't think GAN alone can do that. Wikidata needs its underlying coding fixed to allow for direct disambiguation fixes on data points like these. bd2412T 02:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Would really appreciate it if you could take a look at the recently updated entry for mycujoo - you moved it back to draft space - and see whether you would now consider if it is suitable for publication. I didn't want to waste valuable editors' time if the significant number of new sources still didn't satisfy what you believe to be appropriate, given the decision you made. Any help/guidance/advice is much appreciated. Jleaguer (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
That is really not my call to make. I would suggest that you ask the editors who favored deleting the previous version. Cheers! bd2412T 15:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Rfassbind. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Deborah A. Agosti, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
The topic is a subtopic of the character, Iron Man, which is the lead link on the disambiguation page. We generally avoid including subtopics of topics already covered. bd2412T 01:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
please help translate this message into your local language via meta
The 2017 Cure Award
In 2017 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.
Hi, I'm Barkeep49. BD2412, thanks for creating Edwin R. McNeill!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. It seems clear that he was a real person. However I would suggest that neither of your sites, particularly the Miner one is WP:RS (that one simply seems to be a collective family research site). I would recommend checking out Google books which has some sources verifying his existence. While that trades unreliable sources for primary sources I would suggest that might be a positive overall trade.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
There is another deletion discussion on List of YouTubers. If you would like to weigh in, you can do so by checking out the discussion here. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 07:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice. Cheers! bd2412T 14:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Thought you might find this interesting, since you're working on a draft. I'm getting a strange sense of dejavu. Have we discussed this draft before? Weird ... I feel like I've been here before. — Maile (talk) 00:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps we discussed a different draft on a Hawaiian judge? I have a few of them. bd2412T 11:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I was just about to post this, then had an EC, then you withdrew the proposal.
Comment From my experience fixing dabs I agree with BD2412 this is a frequent problem and a lot of time is wasted fixing these. I think there may be a technical solution. Rather than changing the name of the parameter, the infoboxes could be modified to invoke a new template/Lua module that returns a link when passed a value that would result in a dab link. For example, |Nationality=Swedish would return [[Swedes|Swedish]]. This would put the logic in one place for generating the correct link when the editor has supplied a value that needs disambiguating. This proposal doesn't remove the ability for an editor to say anything they want for |Nationality=; it only makes the same "fix" another editor would do later to resolve a dab. MB 12:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
@MB: is that actually technically feasible? It sounds rather a complex algorithm, presumably it would need to have each case explicitly defined within the template... — Amakuru (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
It's not impossible. We do this with template calls for things like train stations, or for states/countries with actually ambiguous named (Georgia, Washington, New York). However, in my experience, the template doesn't automatically link to the nationality entered. Rather, the disambiguation link is usually inserted manually by an editor. bd2412T 13:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't see why it's not possible. The module would parse the input, and if not a piped link, it would do a dab check probably with a table look-up and make a substitution if the input was a dab. We would only have to maintain a relatively stable "database" of Swedish = Swedes, Chinese = Chinese people, etc. MB 13:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Most of the work would honestly be making the list (I was actually doing the same thing, trying to create a module to convert country to nationality, got somewhere through making it a table in lua using {{football demonyms}} as the the start at [1], then it'd be a easy replace.) Create a module Module:Fix nationality link or something and invoke it in the various infoboxes where nationality is specified. (i.e instead of {{{nationality|}}} put {{#invoke:Fix nationality link|{{{nationality|}}}}}) Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:04, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
You wouldn't need a module. With only 198 countries in the world (round up to 250 if you count the historic ones) a #switch statement in a subtemplate would work just as well. The #default would obviously have to be the parameter itself, but the main point is that you wouldn't need an entire module. Primefac (talk) 14:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC) (please ping on reply)
Hmm, so {{#if:{{#invoke:string|match|{{{1|}}}|^\[\[(%s )\]\]}}$|[[{{#switch:{{#invoke:string|match|{{{1|}}}|\[\[(%s )\]\]}}| Swedish = Swedes| Albanian = Albanians...}}|{{{1|}}}]]}}|{{{1|}}}}} would be it. ( - some brackets probablysome minor fixes) Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I'll help with the list. I assume most would not be controversial, like Swedish = Swedes and Chinese = Chinese people (if an editor wanted to say |nationality=Han Chinese, then they would just do so and we wouldn't "fix" anything). Do we need to do anything to formalize this. My thought is no because the end result is an automated equivalent to the manual disambiguation process. MB 17:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Maybe do a replacement by (continuously running) bot instead? It seems bad/wrong to have the wikimarkup show one thing and the output something else Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I think a bot would be the best option here. The problem with a parameter fix is that people usually add the ambiguous term in brackets - sometimes even with formatting like [[Indian|India]], and sometimes with multiple items in the list. A bot that went to that one the parameter and fixed perhaps the top twenty or so recurring issues appearing in it would do nicely. bd2412T 10:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking an underlying template:nationality_link that could also be used anywhere by editors in article prose also. This way I can say person x is {{:template:nationality_link}}|Malaysia= and get a proper link to Malaysian_people; I don't have to go figure out if there is an article already on the people or the best link is just the country. For Italy, the best link is Italians. For Swiss, Switzerland (although that is already a redirect). This helps most when a DAB is involved (like Italian). But an added benefit is that if a new article is written on a people, one change to this template will updates all the articles using it to link to the new article instead of the country article. MB 17:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, though, I believe that "nationality" refers to a nationhood. One can be Italian people anywhere in the world, but one's nationality would be Italy. bd2412T 18:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Of course, but for the Italy example - would you say the best answer for |nationality= is Italy or Italian people. Even though there can be Italian people anywhere, I would choose Italian people because it is more specific link than the country article. MB 19:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
From a strictly legalistic viewpoint, Italian people is an ethnicity, not a nationality. Of course, Wikipedia isn't strictly legalistic, so I don't know. I always fix them to Italy when I see them, though. bd2412T 20:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Greetings! In March, you were party to a discussion on Talk:Donald Gary Young#Narrative flow, in which you moved a large chunk of article prose to the talk page for discussion on grounds of WP:BLP, mainly sourcing. Out of deference to your concern, I removed it entirely from the talk page where WP:BLP also applies. However, it has been restored for no particular constructive reason. So I would like to query you, whether you still have concerns about the material as it stands on the talk page. I have no access to the sources cited, so I would be unable to accurately evaluate the claims. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
The suggestion in that link is all very well. But, I am not allowed to edit either m:User talk:Tegel or m:Steward requests/Global permissions. So the suggestion in that discussion is, in all frankness, completely and utterly useless.
It took me 9 hours and 5 emails to resolve this problem. As you can imagine, It has mildly pissed me off. I was getting ready to call for help from 2 more admins if necessary (the one an English-language editor whose email is closed, but who once emailed me (you would know the name from WP:DPL); the other Portuguese). A less-experienced editor might (would?) have been completely flummoxed. (I am not a fan of Wikipedia emails. I think that I have only been involved in 4 exchanges. (1) About a DPL HoF t-shirt (which I still have not got). (2) With an editor who grew up at the same time as me and a mile away, though we never met. It seemed better to take that convo off-Wiki. (3) Some sob who wanted to pay me to edit some cruddy articles (an email which, on advice, I forwarded to WP:ARBCOM. (4) Today.
I have still had no response from User:Tegel, whose attitude to range blocks strikes me as perhaps a touch heavy-handed and over-zealous. Especially if it extends to preventing an honest editor from posting an {{unblock}} request on their Talk Page, per WP:UNBLOCK. That was my problem today. It has wasted my, your, and other editors' time. Narky Blert (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I have conducted a study of the matter and concluded that 100% of all vandalism and 100% of all bad edits are made over the Internet. The obvious solution is to block all Internet users from editing Wikipedia, and that will end the scourge of bad edits. Cheers! bd2412T 22:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Your study may not have had a large enough sample size to justify that round-number precision. My studies suggest 99.44%. Narky Blert (talk) 02:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that's just the advertised purity of Ivory Soap. bd2412T 03:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi BD2412, are you moving all the British Mandate links to just one target? A number should have gone to the other target, such as [2]. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
In this case, the other topic is a subtopic of the targeted topic, so all links can go to the same target without taking the reader to a wrong page. This is not, for example, a Georgia (country)/Georgia (U.S. state) situation, where the topics are completely independent of each other. bd2412T 12:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I don’t think that’s right. The historical entity (Mandatory Palestine) was named after and established by the document / legal framework (British Mandate for Palestine), so the historical entity is a subtopic of the document / legal framework. Also the document covered both Palestine and Transjordan, but the entity is only Palestine – so there are geographic differences as well.
By sending links to the entity when we clearly mean the document / legal framework, we are creating an extra step in the readers’ journey to the information they are looking for.
I was going through it carefully, one by one, with DisambAssist. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
In my experience, a geographic entity will just about always be primary over the document creating it. Weren't all these links pointing to the geographic entity before the title was disambiguated? In any case, I'm done working on it. bd2412T 13:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
This came from an article split. The links referred to a mix of the document and the entity, causing much confusion. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Then that should have been resolved prior to someone creating a disambiguation page with thousands of incoming links at this title. bd2412T 13:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
That's just how those edit summaries come out sometimes. It's comprehensible. bd2412T 13:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
It's the first time I see something like that from an AWB bot. I suspect it has to do with matching \[\[Foobar|\ rather than a full link. I'd suggest \[\[Foobar\|(^\]*)\]\] instead. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
It hasn't bothered me, but I think another way to get rid of it would be to remove the "with AWB" parameter. bd2412T 15:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
That might work too,the edit summary would be of the form [[Fooobar| → [[Barfoo| and I don't think that'd get piped to anything because nothing closes it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
If this is the "improvement" [4], something didn't work. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
That edit is also from before our discussion, isn't it? bd2412T 00:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Could be. UTC and local times don't line up, so it's never clear when things happen. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Please consider revising your close of Talk:Non-sporting group#Requested move 20 February 2018 to remove the one-article carve-out you created. There is no policy or other basis for it, only one !vote that doesn't actually make any sense at all. Your carve-out actually directly contradicts an RfC on this matter that was held shortly before the RM in question (and which was why that particular article was included in the first place). Details at Talk:Non-sporting group#Followup notes. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 18:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I didn't create a carve-out. There was an absence of consensus for that specific move. I read the User:Galobtter's statement that he was "Unable to find a single source that uses lower case Fifteen and Send Time" as expressing a non-support. You are, of course, free to initiate a new WP:RM with respect to that specific title, with evidence specific to the assertion that it should be moved. bd2412T 22:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Then that would be good evidence to include in a new move request (and which could just as easily been offered in the last one to rebut the assertion made there). bd2412T 23:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
This sounds like vote-counting to me, when the entire point is that Globtter's statement had no actual basis in facts, or in policy. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 06:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I didn't find any, good that Dickylon did. I didn't have the time or inclination to really look into it, and I don't really care about this, I just found that it wasn't used anywhere so that seemed to go somewhat against "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I have twice suggested opening a new RM for this specific title. I am beginning to suspect advocates of moving the page would rather spend time arguing about it than actually doing something that might resolve it. With respect to the original RM, it is always a poor tactic to add new proposed title changes once the discussion is already in progress, particularly if those new titles are different in some significant way from the previous titles nominated. Since all of the support for the proposed moves came before you made those revisions, and no one appears to have commented in support once those titles were added, there is no support in that discussion for moving the title you are currently complaining about. bd2412T 11:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, very strange. The RM was several months ago, and the onus is generally on those proposing a change to come up with evidence, not those who challenge it. Just go ahead and start a new RM, as BD2412 has expressly encouraged, instead of irrelevantly claiming that there was something wrong with the original close. — Amakuru (talk) 12:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Henry, Prince. Since you had some involvement with the Henry, Prince redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I have commented in the discussion. Cheers! bd2412T 00:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
No doubt this was an oversight, on the part of nominator, Bearcat, but they didn't leave the usual heads-up on the article creators talk page. I thought she met our notability criteria. Following the Afd I'd like to take a close look at . both the article and the Afd.
The possibility exists that doing so will bring a blindspot to my attention. Geo Swan (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I see that this request has already been fulfilled. Cheers! bd2412T 22:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Curtis Roll. Thanks! Legacypac (talk) 03:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I haven't submitted the article. Clearly, it is not ready for submission yet. bd2412T 03:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Neither is really important in the target articles, and all French cities (and many towns, and also in Wallonia and so on) have ZAEs, not just Mende. See for example Albanais, Fernelmont.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Vmavanti looks OK. So does MaoGo. I've seen cautious {{dn}} tags by both of them.
I have as yet no opinion on Gongshow - except that they've been around for a bit!
I once suggested that 10,000 in WP:TDD Table 1 Column 1 might conceivably be within reach. So, what do I know, with 5,000 in our sights? Narky Blert (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Charles R. Donaldson, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
Thanks for helping me improve the wikiepdia. I am wondering if you have time, to review my article for the second stage which is to be Patrolled Ohare — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohare415 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Healing factor. Since you had some involvement with the Healing factor redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I have responded in the discussion, thanks. bd2412T 11:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi @BD2412: I have redone your edit on Boronia lanuginosa as it is the IBRA region, Pine Creek being referred to and not the Pine Creek to which you linked. But thanks for picking up the ambiguous link. MargaretRDonald (talk) 09:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
That is surprising, but thanks. bd2412T 11:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Super Smash Bros. Universe. Since you had some involvement with the Super Smash Bros. Universe redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mz7 (talk) 00:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I have no opinion on this. bd2412T 00:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I haven't run an audit, but I like what I have seen of User:Gongshow. I've seen two or three instances where they've appended exactly the right sort of hidden note to a {{dn}} tag, explaining the problem they saw. That editor may not know that they're in a competition, but I look forward to handing out the appropriate barnstar on 1 July. Narky Blert (talk) 01:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Excellent. Good disambiguators are worth their weight in gold. bd2412T 01:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of public domain works with multimedia adaptations 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 notice from the top of the article. Killer Moff (talk) 12:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I have responded in the discussion, thanks. bd2412T 23:22, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
A page you started (Annapolis newspaper shooting) has been reviewed!
Hey,
I have a question for you. Today I got a message from a user that seemed a little direct. They undid a category addition to Joshua Wolson because I didn't have a cite for the claim. The category was Category:Federalist Society members and I added it because it was found in the committee questionnaire that got released. Now I get that the article falls under WP:BLP but even with a category, does EVERYTHING have to be cited, even if the only citation is the committee questionnaire? According to the message I got: If you can't/won't cite sources for your edits, it's WP:OR or gossip that doesn't belong on a BLP page. I can go through the FS category page by page and I can guarantee you not every single article included under that category has a citation–Do they all NEED to have citations or should I just let it go? To me that's getting a little nit-picky but I'll wait to see what you say. Thoughts please? Thanks! Snickers2686 (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
A category still makes an assertion about the characteristics of the article subject. I would not include a category for such a characteristic unless it was cited in the article. bd2412T 23:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
@BD2412: So in other words, have a valid and cited claim in the article that justifies the category, even if that citation is the questionnaire, correct? Snickers2686 (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I would say so, yes. bd2412T 00:14, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
