BD2412: please could I have rollback here. As you know, I am an admin on WQ and WV, and have rollback on WB, so I know how to use rollback. Thanks.--Collingwood (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Could you move Talk:Bag_(disambiguation) back to Talk:Bag, merging it with your own comment? All of that talkpage is concerning the article-state-of-page. Ta :) —Quiddity (talk) 21:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Could you please explain the following edits [1][2] that have broken links? Is there an intention to rename Rowing project? --Traveler100 (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
The problem is with the template, which does not appear to offer a way to fix ambiguous links without showing the disambiguation term in the link. If you can get this template fixed, please let me know. bd2412T 21:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Never mind, I've figured it out. bd2412T 21:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I ran across your edit of the New Martyr article. You disambiguated Hasan to Hassan al-Banna. That seems very unlikely to me as the title New Martyr comes from the Eastern Orthodox Church and Hassan al-Banna is a Muslim. I thought maybe something got crossed up in your edit. Thanks, SchreiberBike (talk) 05:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
You are correct - fixed. bd2412T 14:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I notice that you made some edits to this article. It is currently up for GA review, and could benefit from an expert looking at it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I am. First Amendment was, in the past, a dab page. Who knows, it may be again in the future. bd2412T 20:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Right, it was; but it isn't any longer. That's what I was trying to convey above, but maybe didn't do a very clear job. Anyway, it's not a dab page any longer, so if you could update the list you use to avoid "correcting" these, that would be great. Thanks. TJRC (talk) 22:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Howdy chief. Requesting a !recount on the Rewilding_Animals RfD please. Of the four participants (including myself the nom), three proposed deletion of the ones with odd spacing around brackets. This isn't particularly clear from a quick reading of the RfD, largely due to my not grouping the redirects under discussion more clearly, apologies. - TB (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I have adjusted the close and deleted the suspect redirects. Cheers! bd2412T 20:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
The Super Disambiguator's Barnstar is awarded to the winners of the Disambiguation pages with linksmonthly challenge, who have gone above and beyond to remove ambiguous links. Your achievment will be recorded at the Hall of Fame. This award is presented to BD2412, for successfully fixing 3305 links in the challenge of October 2012. Rcsprinter(orate) @ 20:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
There is a proposal to move Impulsion (horse) back to just Impulsion. May want to hold off doing the dab links until that discussion has closed, another couple of days, I think. Montanabw(talk) 21:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
There weren't that many - I finished them off in a few minutes. No opinion as to the moveback proposal. bd2412T 21:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Per long-standing consensus, as outlined in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles#Place names, the format for cities in Japan has been standardized to [[City, Prefecture]]. This is the style used for hundreds of Japanese municipality articles. I would appreciate if you could use your administrator powers to roll-back Yokosuka to [[Yokosuka, Kanagawa]] in accordance with this guideline. Regarding WP:TWODABS, in addition to the United States Fleet Activities Yokosuka, there are several “Yokosuka” articles which could be placed in a disambiguation page, including Yokosuka Domain, Yokosuka Castle, Yokosuka Line, and numerous “Yokosuka” aircraft. Such a disambiguation page cannot be created until Yokosuka is moved. Thanks. --MChew (talk) 14:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Why is this naming convention not followed with respect to Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Kobe? It seems that there is some exception to the rule, and I wonder why Yokosuka would not fall into it. Furthermore, a naming convention does not prevent an article from being the primary topic for that name. For example, Kudamatsuredirects to Kudamatsu, Yamaguchi, even though there is also an article on Kudamatsu Station. Therefore, even if Yokosuka should be moved to Yokosuka, Kanagawa, if the city is the primary topic than the title, Yokosuka, should redirect to Yokosuka, Kanagawa. Finally, please note that Yokosuka has several hundred incoming links. These links should be fixed before the page is moved, to avoid creating a major distraction for disambiguators. Cheers! bd2412T 16:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
In response to your first point, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles#Place names, the only exceptions to the rule are Tokyo and the twenty designated cities, of which Yokosuka is not one. I would be happy to see Yokosuka redirecting to Yokosuka, Kanagawa, with Yokosuka, Kanagawa as the article title as this follows the MOS. This is where the page actually was until boldly moved by another user a couple of days ago, so reverting to this format should not create new disambiguation issues. PS: Although perhaps a side issue, Kudamatsu Station is located in Kudamatsu, Yamaguchi; however, Yokosuka Castle and Yokosuka Domain have absolutely no connection with Yokosuka, Kanagawa, which would seem to make creation a disambiguation page at some point in the future relevant? --MChew (talk) 16:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
The question remains to be resolved whether Yokosuka, Kanagawa is the primary topic of the term, Yokosuka. There is certainly nothing preventing the existence of a disambiguation page for the topics named at Yokosuka (disambiguation). We have a hatnote template precisely for such a situation. bd2412T 17:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Agreed and therefore should be nothing preventing reversion of the article title back to Yokosuka, Kanagawa in accordance with the MOS, as this was the article title until a couple of days ago, and most links would still be directing to the article referring to the city of Yokosuka. If there is any doubt as to whether or not Yokosuka, Kanagawa is the primary topic for Yokosuka, then surely Yokosuka should link to Yokosuka (disambiguation) instead? --MChew (talk) 02:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Point taken, and done. Cheers! bd2412T 03:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your assistance! --MChew (talk) 04:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed your edit of the Coase theorem article. It does seem likely that they are talking about the allocation of assets, but the Asset allocation article is about the distribution of assets in an investment portfolio, so I don't think that's the link that they are looking for there. Thanks, SchreiberBike (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Fixed, cheers! bd2412T 00:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Nokia Theater (disambiguation). Since you had some involvement with the Nokia Theater (disambiguation) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). IhelpdןǝɥI 19:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
There does not appear to be any listing at the proposed link. bd2412T 00:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
That's odd. The other editor who (earlier today) blanket reverted me on those articles, also missed a few. GoodDay (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Haven't gotten back to them yet, as I'm working on another project. I will. bd2412T 02:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I wish you'd reconsider. PS: Tbh, I quite baffled by the opposition, as I assumed my deletions would be no-brainers. GoodDay (talk) 03:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Your proposed deletions are the casual elimination of what was likely a great deal of work, and they therefore merit discussion. bd2412T 03:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
An improved version of AWB is available at http://toolserver.org/~awb/snapshots/ Since you are a really active editor I would suggest that you always have the latest AWB revision. It has fixed some critical bugs (including the wikify-underlinked change) and it is much faster than the one you have. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks - I'll check it out shortly. bd2412T 23:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
As I am sure you are aware, this edit you made with the edit summary minor fixes, mostly disambig links using AWB and was marked "minor" was not actually minor: Deleting 31,890 characters would not usually be minor, except when reverting vandalism.
Is there a good reason for removing a long history of warnings? —EncMstr (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, there is a very good reason encapsulated in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 9#IP talk pages, where it was agreed that old IP talk pages should be blanked because whatever was on the page was likely to be irrelevant to future IP editors who coincidentally happened to edit from a common or dynamic IP address. Blanking ancient IP talk page messages (and for IP talk pages, anything over a year old is effectively ancient) is indeed minor matter. I would add one point not raised in the discussion that blanking IP talk pages reduces link load, making it easier to find relevant content on "what links here" pages. bd2412T 21:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
The Washington, DC event will be held on Monday, December 10, 2012 at Busboys & Poets on 5th St NW & K St NW near Mt Vernon Square. The area is easily accessible by the Red Line Chinatown stop and the Yellow Line and Green Line Mt Vernon Square stop, as well as by WMATA buses.
Hello BD2412. I see you've improved the topic area by writing an entire new article on ThunderCats. What do you think of the {{About}} template at the top of ThunderCats (1985 TV series)? It seems logical to change ThunderCats => ThunderCats (disambiguation), so we once again refer the reader to the DAB page for other meanings. However, this would take away the link to ThunderCats, which is your new article. Any other solution? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
The series is part of the franchise. Following from the example of franchises like Transformers and Star Wars, there should be one main article on the franchise, and the articles on individual elements of the franchise should be trimmed down to each address only that individual element. As for the one other meaning, the former name of an arena football team, this is comparatively minor and is adequately addressed by the hatnote at ThunderCats. Note that ThunderCats is now the first place people will reach while searching for information on any aspect of the franchise, so it is unlikely that any hatnote is needed at all on the 1985 TV series article. Cheers! bd2412T 02:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a 'back pointer' for those who come directly to one of the specific ThunderCats articles to make them aware there is a general article? EdJohnston (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Since all of the articles are part of the franchise, there should be a link to the franchise right in the first sentence of each article. bd2412T 03:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
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.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. - MrX 21:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
De-prodded, expanded, and thoroughly referenced. bd2412T 22:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I don't think your deletions of Nampally and Ibrox disaster will work as you intended. Once the pages are undeleted, the links to them will still be in the database. Links are stored with the destination title as text, not as a page id, so deleting and undeleting does not affect the link record at all. Nice try, though. :-) R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Pond Life, also. Why are they showing up as having incoming links when there are none, then? bd2412T 23:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, back in late October (yes, that long ago), there was some problem with Toolserver and database changes weren't picked up for some period of time. During that time, unfortunately, a couple of templates with large numbers of links to these few pages were edited, and those links are still in the Toolserver's database even though they were deleted from the master Wikipedia database. Toolserver has requested a refresh of their database, but it's been inexplicably delayed (I nudged the sysadmin again today and maybe, but maybe not, that will help get things moving). --R'n'B (call me Russ) 00:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I have responded to your comments at Talk:Sociopathy; I'd like to request a response. (Your talk page cites a "Dispute resolution clause", and as I don't entirely understand what this means, I am hereby opting out of such an agreement at this time. I am only posting here to inform you and to request a response.) Thanks, C-PTSD (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Also: I would like to apologize for having failed to tap you on the shoulder for input at Talk:Sociopathy, for the discussion about maintaining Sociopathy as a disambiguation page. My intention was to tap everyone in that discussion, but you only made the one comment on August 12, 2012, and it was so short that I didn't notice it. It was an oversight, not intentional; please excuse me. C-PTSD (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm really not sure what to do about them, since I have essentially stopt dealing with vandals and vandalisms and do little editing now. Could some of them be made essays and the rest made an archive someone central rather than dependent on that or any IP addr? 76.117.247.55 (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I'll come up with something in a bit - maybe a talk subpage of WP:VANDALISM. bd2412T 21:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Was this a mistake? KTC (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, definitely. I assume I was trying to rollback obvious vandalism on my watchlist and clicked the wrong rollback button. bd2412T 02:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The work you are doing to move Kyoto to Kyoto (city) is not productive. The move to "Kyoto (city)" was done in error and hopefully will be reverted very soon. Please see the talk page of Kyoto (city). Can you please stop doing these? JoshuSasori (talk) 02:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Given the large number of meanings, the link is unstable. Having the links point to the "(city)" article will reduce the number of links to be fixed if the target of this link changes again in the future. Besides, I'm 4/5 of the way done. bd2412T 02:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
See my response to that discussion. bd2412T 02:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Seriously, stop correcting the redirects. I've reverted the changes to the redirect and the dab so it's entirely unnecessary.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Can you guarantee that this will not arise as an issue in the future? bd2412T 02:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes because the page should never have been moved in the first place. You've had 3 separate people tell you this was a very bad idea. Get the hint and undo the mess you've caused.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
First, do not use vulgarity on my talk page. Ever. Second, understand that if this page shows up on the list of incoming disambiguation links, there are two dozen other disambiguation fixers who will do exactly as I have done. Third, there is no mess to clean up. Links through redirects are expressly permitted by policy. bd2412T 02:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes there is a mess to fix up because Kyoto should never have been moved. I've reverted Mashumayu's unilateral edits to the redirects and disambiguation pages, so now Kyoto redirects to Kyoto (city) so your extensive 2000+ editing campaign is entirely useless. And I will swear whenever I feel like because clearly after two people told you you shouldn't have been fixing all the incoming links, you didn't get the hint. So being vulgar as you call it gets the point across much more directly. If you do not attempt to undo your mass changes now, thereby preventing the need to do the same in the next 48 hours when the page should be speedily moved back to its initial title, you will save everybody time and me the time it would take to start an ANI report because you have been told by 3 different people that this was a very bad idea™.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Links through redirects are expressly permitted by policy. There is, as a matter of policy, nothing to fix. In any case, I have stopped, as asked, having only done a handful of additional edits after the first request - the 2000+ edits to which you refer were basically done before anyone commented on it. Furthermore, I provided a rationale for fixing the links for long-term stability despite the immediate discussion. There is no breach of policy to bring to ANI, but I can't stop you from doing whatever it is you are going to do. bd2412T 02:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what the effing policy was (and that's a guideline which is different). The page should not have been moved and your "fixes" are contra to the fact that now there are 2000+ pages that link to Kyoto (city) when that should have never been done in the first place. Now there's going to be a massive thing to cleanup when the page is restored to its original location because it's an unprintworthy redirect and should not have existed in the first place.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Relax. There is nothing to clean up. If you disagree, please cite the policy that these links violate. If I'm wrong, I'll be glad to be corrected. Cheers! bd2412T 03:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
It should be whatever policy/guideline possessed you to make the changes in the first place.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
The policy that led me to make the changes in the first place was Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Links to disambiguation pages. If there is something there which makes these links violate policy as they are now, I would be very interested in being informed of that. Cheers again! bd2412T 03:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
While I understand that your attempt to fix the disambiguation problem was done in good faith, the problem is that the move from "Kyoto" to "Kyoto (city)" was not a good idea, and this change will most certainly be reversed very shortly. So your efforts, while based on the policy, are not going to be productive ones, in the long run. I don't think that the consensus on "Kyoto" is likely to change any time in the near future. So please allow me to strongly suggest that it would be better not to do any more of this work. Thank you! JoshuSasori (talk) 04:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Per this question "If there is something there which makes these links violate policy as they are now" as I read the Links to disambiguation pages section making a link to a dis page is in general an error, and I regularly get bot notices when I make that error. Moving Kyoto to Kyoto (city) to create links without making them to page that is not a page is not related to disambiguation pages because Kyoto is not a disambiguation page (a list of all cities named Kyoto). And the advice about not fixing redirects is for situations where a page might have that name in the future. It is as stated, not likely that Kyoto will ever be moved to Kyoto (city), and this process is only done for pages that do not exist, like Foo redirecting to Foobar, where Foo has not been created yet, but is covered in the Foobar article that does exist. That advise is not intended to be a crystal ball in predicting page moves in the future. I would recommend reverting the changes of [[Kyoto|something]] to [[Kyoto (city)|something]] and [[Kyoto]] to [[Kyoto (city)|Kyoto]]. Apteva (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
That is not what happened in this case at all. I checked the regular toolserver report of pages with the most incoming links, and saw a sharp spike in disambiguation links which had been caused by Kyoto being reclassified as a disambiguation page. At that time, all of the links pointing to Kyoto were disambiguation links, and needed to be fixed immediately. I fixed around 2,000 of those before anyone contacted me to let me know that the page location was under discussion. I initially explained my rationale for continuing those fixes, made only a handful of additional edits in this direction, and then stopped. So far as I was aware, Kyoto was a disambiguation page at the time that I was fixing these links. As to reverting those changes, links piped through redirects are not an error, and cause no harm. However, Wikipedia has hundreds of thousands of actual errors which do harm the project by, for example, leading readers to the wrong article when the link is followed. I will be glad to to revert my edits to the links to Kyoto as soon as I have fixed these harmful errors. I invite you to help, which will speed this process along, and will make you eligible for valuable cash prizes. Cheers! bd2412T 23:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
The move was completely bogus. Virtually all of the links to the "disambiguation page" were intended for the city. We can say with certainty that there will never be a situation where the article on the city will be moved to Kyoto (city) according to consensus. And don't take this as my POV, since I actually dislike Wikipedia's basing its conventions on what is a designated city and what isn't and think that every article on a Japanese municipality should literally translate the Japanese name (i.e., Kyōto City). The one exception to my proposal would be Tōkyō-to, which would remain as Tokyo because it is truly special! wwww elvenscout742 (talk) 03:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
A decade ago, people would have probably thought the same thing about another Japanese city - perhaps you've heard of Obama? I agree that Kyoto is the most important use of the term, but primary topics can change. I was merely guarding against a flooding of the disambig link count, and doing so without violating any policy of the project. However, I have proposed in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#RM/TR takes precedence over Consensus seeking discussions? that moves like the one leading to this disruption should be made technically impossible. I hope you will support that proposition. Cheers! bd2412T 03:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I have indeed heard of Obama. :D I'm not sure what Wikipedia was like a decade ago, but under the current policy there is no risk there because we have to include the prefecture name in the article title. I'm honestly not surprised, though, to see that on English Wikipedia the article on the current president almost predated the city in Fukui[3][4], since he was already famous after the 2004 Democratic Convention, when the article on the city in Fukui looked like this. LOL elvenscout742 (talk) 04:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dear chap/chapess, you deserve a nice cup of tea for calmly fixing redirects while people are swearing at you. I have posted a comment at Talk:Kyoto. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the Category:Ride albums dablink. Now I've seen how you did it, I know how to fix the category ones myself. :) CarrieVS (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I can't put links for some reason. It was meant to say it was the one on category: Ride Albums. Just so you know what the heck I'm on about. CarrieVS (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
No problem, glad to be of help! bd2412T 04:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't think this is how this template works – or wouldn't all the links after Australia also need amending to include "List of soccer clubs in" (and the template renamed "Lists of soccer clubs in Oceania" or the like)..? Perhaps the template's documentation needs clarification. CsDix (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I see what happened there. bd2412T 00:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I have fixed the problem once and for all by redirecting all of those titles through an "association football" redirect. bd2412T 01:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Re the Oceania template, it is a general template and I was expecting it to direct me to an article/list about telephone numbers in Australia. But OK, not vandalism! Hugo999 (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I didn't see that when I went to fix it because the error was being reported on soccer pages, so I went to one and followed the link out to the template from it. No problem, all patched. bd2412T 04:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Per this comment at WP:RM: "Furthermore, I sometimes come upon situations where I lack the expertise in a given field needed to tell whether the initial page really is the primary topic". That happens to me all the time when I am doing WP:RCP (not whether it is a primary topic but whether it is a valid edit), and my solution is to just leave the questionable edit to someone else to deal with. We do have a noticeboard for BLP, and ones for some other subjects. I notice that MOS is treated as a noticeboard for MOS violations, even though I find that highly inappropriate. It is true that there might only be a dozen editors who are thoroughly familiar with either MOS and AT, and none with both, and almost the only way to attract any of their attention is at those respective talk pages, but I was wondering, are any of us too proud to just ask the question at the WP:Help desk? Would that be the best place to ask those questions? Should those of us who are familiar with these guidelines and policies be making more of a habit hanging out there to help answer these questions? Apteva (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I suppose if an edit is really questionable, the thing to do would be to drop a note at the relevant wikiproject asking them to look at it. In my experience, the editors who make questionable moves don't seem to ask questions first. bd2412T 23:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! When you move an existing article to create a disambiguation page, please take care to fix all incoming links immediately. Otherwise, readers following those existing links will not longer be taken to the article, and will be confused as to which link they should follow. Please do this now for the disambiguation pages you have already created. Cheers! bd2412T 05:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for letting me know. Unfortunately, there may be too many pages with links to the article that I can't help not doing that. I'm not too experienced anyway, so could you please assist me with that? Thanks! Bob Mono (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi BD2412, I'd appreciate any comments/ perspectives that you might have related to a discussion with another editor, re: the naming of disambiguation pages. I may not have fully appreciated the guidelines that you previously outlined for me. But my attempt to follow through with them seems to have run awry. Please see the brief discussion on my talk page. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for offering a second opinion. Much appreciated! Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 11:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Edit (I'm putting the update first to save you reading the original): I now see that sinusoid was actually disambiguation page when you made these changes. I assume you knew all of the below, so please ignore, sorry! One little thing that's still relevant is, if sinusoid were still a disamb. page, [[Sine wave|sinusoidal]] would be better than [[Sine wave|sinusoid]]al. I'm guessing this was just a typo. Quietbritishjim (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
FYI, there is nothing wrong with links to redirects; see the relevant section of the manual of style. For example, you recently changed [[sinusoid]] and [[sinusoid]]al to [[Sine wave|sinusoid]] and [[Sine wave|sinusoid]]al, but the original versions were preferable. In fact, if a word (or phrase) unambiguously identifies an article but the article is titled differently, and that word currently does not have a redirect, it's better to create the redirect than to use a piped link. Of course you *should* use piped links if that's not an option e.g. if the text you want to appear in the article identifies a disambiguation page. Even then, you can often avoid a lot of repetition using the Help:Pipe trick. Maybe that's a bit obscure, but linking to redirects certainly isn't.
By the way, in the cases where you really have to use pipes, make sure the whole word is included. For example, the link [[sinusoid]]al links the whole word - it's effectively [[sinusoid|sinusoidal]], which is a useful trick. But you changed this to [[Sine wave|sinusoid]]al, and although the dangling al is included in the link so it's not broken as such, it is exactly the same as [[Sine wave|sinusoidal]], which is clearer. Quietbritishjim (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Not having the background to be sure whether the disambiguation move was correct, I took the cautious route and changed all the links to point to what would be the proper disambiguation target. I agree that the -al should have been inside the link. I'll work things like that into the AWB script in the future. Cheers! bd2412T 02:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the disambiguation work. I intended to do it as soon as the bot left me a message, but you beat me to it. Thanks! Keizers (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
My pleasure. Cheers! bd2412T 15:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey, I just noticed you did all these moves; thank you! They were queued up at WP:RM/TR for a while due to nobody having enough patience. Can I ask if you were able to use any automation for this? It is not uncommon for technical requests to ask for a large number of moves. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Nope, did it all by hand, mostly in groups, by letter. Cheers! bd2412T 17:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
The Super Disambiguator's Barnstar is awarded to the winners of the Disambiguation pages with linksmonthly challenge, who have gone above and beyond to remove ambiguous links. Your achievment will be recorded at the Hall of Fame. This award is presented to BD2412, for successfully fixing 3778 links in the challenge of January 2013. Rcsprinter(rap) @ 17:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Cheers. bd2412T 02:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Im sorry i never sorted the redirect, but why did you delete it. Rather than recreating the page to add the Template:DisambigProject could you please undelete and add the tag removing the redirect, keeps the history which given the move i don't see as a bad thing even though redirects are cheap.BletheringScot 18:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Done. However, please note that talk page redirects resulting from page moves are WP:CSD#G6, and are routinely deleted. Please note, also, that page histories are maintained in order to attribute authorship to those who write the materials that are presented in Wikipedia. There is no authorship inherent in a page move. Cheers! bd2412T 20:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
BD - I filled out the rest of Fort Fisher and did all of the Battle of Corinth links at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Disambiguation help needed., but that's about the extent of my knowledge. If no one steps up to do the other ones, I may put my nose to the grindstone and try to figure out what is what, but I'm relatively inexpert at 20th century conflicts. Cdtew (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, very much appreciated. bd2412T 18:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
The standard title for given names articles seems to be Name (given name). I am also trying to avoid having the given name page turned into a disambiguation page. The title of the article should be moved back immediately to Tabitha (given name) and the disambiguation page should be separate. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
First, you are flatly wrong about the standard title. See Category:Given names; the vast majority of pages on given names are at the base page name. Compare also names like Brian, Roger, and Samantha. Second, do you understand that, per WP:MALPLACED, if Tabitha is not a page on the given name, then the disambiguation page must be at the base page name? In any event, there is nothing to disambiguate, period; per MOS:DABNAME, "Articles only listing persons with a certain given name or surname, known as anthroponymy articles, are not disambiguation pages". Since there are no meanings for Tabitha other than as a given name, there is no reason not to conform to the standards of this encyclopedia. Cheers! bd2412T 20:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
An unfortunate trend. If this editor persists in pressing his misunderstanding of article-naming policies, a topic ban might be in order. bd2412T 13:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, better wording. I had two drafts from stream of consciousness and tried to make a coherent whole but came in just shy of the mark. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the note on 2-entry DABs. Now I will have to find another sense and start another article, just to save that page. 8-) However, please ponder about this: "whenever an editor is told to go read a style manual, Wikipedia loses another editor." A couple years ago I analyzed the growth of Wikipedia, and it was clear that the editor base has been falling exponentially since 2005-2006. It was steadily losing old editors and failing to recruit new ones. I presume that the trend has not improved. Wikiprojects and talk pages now seem to be deserted dusty halls, feel tempted to write "Hello! Is anybody home?" To me, the cause of the problem is clear: editing has become forbiddingly hard, even for seasoned editors. The vast number of finnicky rules, and their obsessive enforcement (no matter how gentle) by veteran editors, are a big part of that problem. If I were you, I would advise every editor, whenever I had a chance, to not read any of the manuals or rules. Instead, editors should just look at other articles, and try to imitate what they see and like, and improve on it if they can. And if I were top honcho of Wikipedia, The first thing I would do is rm -rf wiki/Wikipedia:*. That would go a long way towards saving this project. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the rule is reasonable, and I might have done it that way if I had thought more about it. But I was trying to sort out half a dozen articles at the time... (But having a manual page about it? That, I am afraid, does more harm than good...) All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello. You reverted a change to a redirect. I presumed that edit would have been non-controversial in substance. The redirect, as it stood, did not even direct to a "Thema". In contrast, the diambig that was created as a target included a number of actual Themas, as well as the original target.
According to that wikiproject page, I gather that "Thema" should link directly to what is now the "Thema (disambiguation)" page, but should be named "Thema". (As the wp project page says, "This situation is avoidable, as the disambiguation page can exist at Foogle.").
Thoughts?--Epeefleche (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
The fact that there are a large number of possible meanings is the beginning of the inquiry, not the end of it. As you can see, for example, there are a large number of meanings at George Washington (disambiguation) and Apple (disambiguation), but that does not make these the base page names appropriate for disambiguation. The next question is whether there is a primary topic for the term that can be determined from incoming links, page views, and Google hits for the various meanings. In this case, all of the incoming links appear to relate to the Byzantine district. If you disagree with this assessment, the venue for making such a change is Wikipedia:Requested moves, where a request can be made to move the disambiguation page to the undisambiguated title. bd2412T 20:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I would think that there are a large number of titles that use that name, but that the one redirected to does not use the name "Thema", would be of moment. And yes -- whenever we have a redirect that is longstanding the incoming links will point to it. That's no mystery. Anyone creating a link to Thema for another reason will automatically see that it points to the wrong place. Or, if they don't, our bot will tend to remind them. It is self-propagating.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
It may be, but it may also represent settled expectations. Since it is incorrect to redirect a base page name to a page with a "Foo (disambiguation)" title, what you are seeking to do here is to effect a page move. The discussion following a page move request will flesh out these issues. I am in the process of bypassing all of the redirects on these pages in case it is, in fact moved. bd2412T 21:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Great. I know that is tedious work, so thanks. I'll wait till the dust clears. Have also added additional themas to the dab page. It is worthy noting, btw, that the target that you reverted to does not attract the most page views of those articles currently on the dab page. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
While significant, that too is not the end of the inquiry. Is the "most attractive" article a partial title match for which the word "Thema" alone unlikely to be used? I don't know, but these are things to be brought up in support of a move request. bd2412T 23:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm really failing to see anything convincing (to me) for creating a link to an article that: a) fails to even have "thema" in its name; and b) has half the page views of another article on the disambig page. That's half the views even with everyone looking for any other "Thema" ending up on its page. The only thing I can imagine you are considering is long-term usage. But I've just brought to AfD and had deleted pages that were marked for notability five years ago. Nobody paid attention. That happens all the time. That, for example, is why long-term usage on wp is not generally a consideration at AfD or similar places. Indeed, the hatnote on this page was long-term unhelpful, as it failed to point to nearly all the other articles now on the disambig page. I really am surprised that you would restore a link under these circumstances. Non-controversial doesn't mean one couldn't make a poor defense for it as the target; it means that looking at the facts, dispassionately, one sees that there is not legitimate reason to link the article to the current target. Such is the case here. We're not even arguing over whether to link the phrase to the article with twice the page views. Just to the disambig page. Clearly, your direct to the current target send most people to something other than the most read article. We don't need to have a community discussion over things that, legitimately, are non-controversial.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
As I have said, if you wish to have the disambiguation page moved to the base pagename, make a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves. That is the appropriate place for the discussion part of the WP:BRD cycle to be carried out. bd2412T 02:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I heard that. I apparently didn't make myself clear. --Epeefleche (talk) 02:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Is Lancia Thema the "other article on the disambig page" to which you refer? bd2412T 12:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes. I only checked a couple, but saw that one had twice the page views of the current target.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks for the kindness. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for going above and beyond to make sure that at the end of the day, whatever was the correct result would be reached, here. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
There is one remaining incoming link to that page, on an index of philosophy terms. If you could figure that one out, I would certainly appreciate it. Cheers! bd2412T 21:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Done. There does not appear to be an article on the term at the project, so it is now a redlink.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court Cases for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to SCOTUS cases and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 13:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
