Disambiguation link notificationsEdit

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)

My content creator's to-do list has items so old they've grown moldEdit

...so I moved them to the /Content to-do items subpage. Someday maybe I'll get to these... Wbm1058 (talk) 03:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia "Merge" like WP:RM or WP:AFDEdit

There are a lot of tumbleweeds rolling over at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers... the last edit added a {{backlog}} template. Now that I'm an administrator, I've decided to focus on clearing the Wikipedia:WikiProject History Merge and Category:Possible cut-and-paste moves backlogs first. If Proposed mergers were busier, I'd make this a higher priority.

Proposed MergersEdit

Since you run MergeBot and RMCDBot, I was wondering, if it were possible to create an auto generated list like WP:RM has but for WP:PM, that links to the centralized discussion area, and lists the topics to be merged (from/to/with) ? As the current MergeBot already generates arrows indicated from/to/with, it would seem a modification of template:requested move/dated/multi would do to handle such an automated listing based on a standardized talk section header.

-- (talk) 04:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

See § Wikipedia "Merge" like WP:RM or WP:AFD above. Still on my back-burner. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Adding permalinks to block log entries for 3RREdit

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

Cross-namespace redirectsEdit

Deep gratitudeEdit

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)

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)
Break? Whassat?!   – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 05:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  • 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)
    I finally used AWB to populate Category:Redirects to user namespace; it now has over 900 members. My technique was to Make list from source Special page: All Redirects in namespace Wikipedia: – the category hasn't yet been fully populated for other namespaces. I think all of the cross-namespace redirect categories can and should eventually be populated by bots... AWB may be able to do that with a sufficiently sophisticated configuration. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
    See HERE for the regex find & replace used for this. I manually monitored this and had to skip some that were already rcat templated; also may have missed some. wbm1058 (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
    Or the database query method used to generate User:Largoplazo/WP Redirects may be a more efficient method than my AWB special page walk-through. I need to figure out how to do that myself. @Paine Ellsworth: FYI. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the ping, Wbm1058! That's pretty cool stuff you're doing – and waay outside my full comprehension. Please keep up the great work!  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  15:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Redirects from namespace 1 to namespace 0Edit

SELECT concat( "*[[Talk:", p.page_title, "]] redirects to [[:", r.rd_title, "]]" )
FROM redirect r
INNER JOIN page p ON p.page_id = r.rd_from
WHERE p.page_namespace = 1
AND   r.rd_namespace = 0
ORDER by page_title;



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)


Thank you for using VisualEditor and sharing your ideas with the developers.

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.

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

Setting magic wordsEdit

I've done some analysis of VisualEditor's setting of behavior switches, see the archived discussion. I intend to follow up on this. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate template parametersEdit

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)

@Gadget850: Right, already taken care of. See Template talk:Non-free use rationale logo#Override fields. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
To do: possible merge of {{Non-free use rationale}} and {{Non-free use rationale 2}}
Non-free media information and use rationale for Test article





Test article

Portion used


Low resolution?

{{{Low resolution}}}

Purpose of use




Fair useFair use of copyrighted material in the context of Test article//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wbm1058
Media data and Non-free use rationale
Author or
copyright owner
Source (WP:NFCC#4) Myself
Use in article (WP:NFCC#7) Test article
Purpose of use in article (WP:NFCC#8)
Not replaceable with
free media because
Minimal use (WP:NFCC#3)
Respect for
commercial opportunities
Fair useFair use of copyrighted material in the context of Test article//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wbm1058

For that matter, {{Non-free use rationale 2}} and {{Non-free use rationale logo}} are also somewhat redundant, as show by the usage of both here. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Generate automatic summary /* blah */ when I manually add a section headingEdit

Consolidated discussions are at my subpage /Generate automatic summary /* blah */ when I manually add a section heading when editing. Hopefully solutions are on the way soon. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Module documentation and test casesEdit

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)

Module:Syrian Civil War map is in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded.
I edited Module:Syrian Civil War map/doc, and created Module:Syrian Civil War map/testcases.
Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War used to transclude {{Syrian Civil War detailed map}}, until substituted.
Template:Syrian Civil War detailed map loads Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map.
Template:Syrian Civil War map (created 21 February 2015‎) . . . Wbm1058 (talk) 03:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Module:Syrian Civil War map/testcasesEdit

 Module:Syrian Civil War map/testcases has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


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)

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)


  Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 17:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

So many things needing fixed, so little time time get to more than a fraction of them, sigh. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of DOS operating systemsEdit

I remember that you once intended to take your Timeline of DOS operating systems article to featured status, but did not take time to familiarize yourself with the process. Looking at that article, the only thing that is not compliant with the featured list criteria is the lead section. Basically, the only thing required to promote it to FL status would be to expand the lead section by adding an introduction to DOS operating systems. After that, you are good to go and can nominate it according to the instructions on WP:FLC. (Since this article is a list, the Good Article process does not apply.) Good luck! sst 04:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I see, apparently there is no "good list" equivalent to Good Article, so I can skip that step and go straight to becoming a member of Category:Featured lists, where around a couple dozen featured timelines can be found. Thanks! As I haven't made any significant updates to that since February, I suppose I'm due to get back to it and finish it off soon. Wbm1058 (talk) 11:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Race Against the MachineEdit

Hi wbm, I see you mention this book on your user page. Does the main thesis have implications for how Wikipedia works, and if so, on what time scale? - Dank (push to talk) 15:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

A main thesis of the book is that accelerating technology improvements will reduce employment, and over time this will effect more higher-skilled occupations. We see this already with jobs coming back to the US from China... because they are replacing people with bots. Yes, a few more jobs for Americans who are skilled at bot development, operations and maintenance. But way fewer jobs than were displaced in China. Of course, at Wikipedia there are relatively few editors that work for money. We already have very intelligent bots such as ClueBot NG that help tremendously with tasks such as vandalism reversion. That one has over 4 million edits now! Bots also help with spelling corrections. There could be further enhancements to these tasks that could reduce the need for new page patrollers and spelling correctors. Time scale is dependent on volunteer contributions, or possible funding by the Wikimedia Foundation. wbm1058 (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. The future seems to be coming at us pretty fast. I try to stay informed-but-neutral. - Dank (push to talk) 17:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Birth dates in biographies and California Law AB-1687Edit

Here's an interesting news item: California Enacts Law Requiring IMDb to Remove Actor Ages on Request

I participated in an interesting conversation about this here. I'd be interested in hearing from others who are interested in this. What do you think? wbm1058 (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of actors and birth dates... Can we remove the birth date from Vanessa Ferlito's page or lock it? Plenty of public sources cite 1977 yet someone (probably her PR) keeps reverting it back to 1980. IMDB doesn't fall in line. Suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Right, thanks. I don't like to see stuff I archived as resolved keep coming back as an issue. I see the TV Guide bio doesn't have a birth date anymore, while in my archive I reported that it did. I think pending changes protection is in order, as relying on watchlisting isn't giving us timely reversions. wbm1058 (talk) 02:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Templates for deletion for deletionEdit

Implement multiple parameters to prefix: operator on fulltext searchesEdit

{{Search deletion discussions}} and {{Search prefixes}} and all that authors other stuff should probably be deleted after emailing him. His {{Create parameter string}} is used but not well.

For now, I'd fix wp: Deletion process § Search all deletion discussions with a search link for each of the fullpagenames in wp:Deletion process § Step-by-step instructions (all discussion types).

I would. And I'd be glad for an invite to help you with any queries or discussions on this matter. — Cpiral§Cpiral 05:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 61 § is there a way to search several sections with one search? – June 10–17, 2009
And User talk:Rainman § modification to search several Wikipedian sections at one time – June 15–17, 2009
And User talk:Stmrlbs/Archive/001 § multiple prefixes – June 15–17, 2009
June 17, 2009 Help:Searching documentation update, alas documentation of this multiple-prefixes-separated-by-pipes feature was removed on October 11, 2009 when this was rewritten, to try to improve usability
"To search multiple sections of Wikipedia with different prefixes, enter the different prefixes with a pipe delimiter."
"This should be especially useful for archive searching in concert with inputbox or searchbox."
@Cpiral: so clearly prefix did at least briefly take pipes. Unfortunately, the volunteer developer of that, Rainman, isn't active any more either, and I haven't been able to locate his code changes that implemented that feature. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the history lesson. Interesting. Maybe useful.
Anyway, for now we have wp:deletion process#Search all deletion discussions. Hope that helps. — Cpiral§Cpiral 07:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Those missing templatesEdit

Hi Wbm1058

I'm guessing that it was this edit[1] by you which produced the flurry of Category:ISO 639 name xyz-type categories currently listed at Special:WantedCategories. Is that right?

If so, is there any guidance on how to create them? It would be handy to have them cleared before the next update of Special:WantedCategories brings in another flood of new stuff. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: Right, this was my clunky attempt to solve a problem. See Template talk:ISO 639 name#Return empty string for codes not on the list. Sorry about cluttering up WantedCategories; that was a side-effect that I didn't think of. These categories are not actually supposed to be created, but rather templates with the same name. The idea was to avoid degrading the reader experience by showing redlink-templates, but provide an easier way for patrolling editors to find the problem. I guess I should revert that, but it would be nice to replace it with a better solution, if we can come up with one. wbm1058 (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, my post was a bit unclear. What I meant was: any guidance on how to create the templates? I'd be happy to help if I knew how.
This looks fine as a way of getting a list of needed templates. But now that Special:WantedCategories has created the list, it would be helpful if the template could stop generating these categories, prferably before the next update (which is likely on 11 April or 12 April).
I have gotten a it of practice at quickly grabbing a categ list from the oddly-formatted Special:WantedCategories, so I made a list of the ISO 639 categs, at User:Wbm1058/ISO 639 categs. I hope that helps; if it's a nuisance, pls delete it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl, this is kind of like the blind leading the blind to repair issues caused by other blind. There is Category:Articles containing unknown ISO 639 language template, which was created by Jonesey95. Then there is also Category:Lang-x templates with other than ISO 639. Some editors have used these "language" templates for dialects of languages that do not have ISO 639 codes, thus the attempts of templates to look up ISO 639 codes fail with errors implying an ISO 639 template needs to be created. Well, there is none to be created. My solution for cases like that is edits like THIS and THIS. We need to sort these dialect "languages" out from the real languages that actually have ISO 639 codes where a template really does need to be created. I'm not an expert in any of this, and got involved with it when the new Category:Pages with template loops was created, and that snagged the poor design of these "language" templates. See also Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 154#Category:Pages with template loops for background on what led me into this rabbit-hole. Template:Language with name and Template:Lang were never intended to be used for dialects, but how can we expect editors other than the ones who designed these templates to know that? – wbm1058 (talk) 12:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
What an almighty mess. My immediate question is to ask what purpose this whole system serves, and whether any of this necessary? I know little about the topic, so I make no attempt to try answering that pair of questions ... but I do think that when something gets so complex, it's time to re-evaluate the cost-benefit ratios.
I'm afraid that I have neither the skills to get that deep into these templates nor the inclination to do so, so I think i'd better withdraw my offer to help. Sorry!
In the meantime, please could you revert the edit which populated the categs? It does seem to have served its purpose, and the ongoing slog of clearing the 100–200 daily additions to Special:WantedCategories is impeded by these categs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
BrownHairedGirl, you are wise to move on to somewhere that makes more sense. The whole lang template system is a bit of a mess and in need of a rethink. In the meantime, I am slowly (five weeks so far) clearing out the errors and creating needed templates based on Category:Articles containing unknown ISO 639 language template. I should be done in a couple of weeks.
In answer to your "what purpose this whole system serves", tagging text with {{lang}} can affect how the enclosed text is rendered. It also adds a tracking category, which may be useful to some editors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure edits like this are the optimal solution – whether something is a language or a dialect is irrelevant, we want the text string to be formatted properly and bypassing {{Language with name}} doesn't help with that. I've had a look at User:Wbm1058/ISO 639 categs and most of these appear to either contain typos (in which case they need to be fixed in the specific pages that use the lang template), or to be of the type aaa-Bbb, which is the format for the language (aaa) + script(Yyyy) combination. Pinging Erutuon whom I've seen working on this. – Uanfala (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I am working on Category:Articles containing unknown ISO 639 language template and expect to have it mostly cleared out in a few days. When I started a month ago, there were something like 2,000 pages in the category. It's down to 332 right now. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I would replace all the templates with modules. The module could check to see if the code string is valid character-wise – either xyz or xyz-Abcd – using regular expressions. It could also check if the script and language codes are correct using the MediaWiki language library or a data module that lists language codes. And it could create linked language names by adding the articles as an entry in the data module. Wiktionary does all this language-related stuff using modules (see wikt:Module:languages, wikt:Module:scripts, wikt:Module:script utilities). I've begun such a module at Module:Language (see also Module:Language/scripts/data), though it does not currently do everything mentioned here. — Eru·tuon 18:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Sounds great to me. I see that you have already seen this discussion from six months ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
If you need any help, you can ask for it at Wikipedia:Lua/To do. While I've self-taught myself enough PHP to support two bots and even write one from scratch, I've yet to make time to study Lua, so I can only do so much with that. wbm1058 (talk) 20:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Task to switch between new and old interface of "search for contributions"Edit

Hello. For notification, the task to switch between new and old interface of user contributions page was rejected. Izno suggested personal gadget/script or something. I would prefer that the switch between old and new be proposed at WP:village pump (proposals). Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

George, I wouldn't know how to write a script to change the interface, and I'm not keen on switching between two less-than-ideal interfaces. There should only need be one, fully-functional interface that's adequate for efficiently handling all use cases. What we have now is not such an interface, and we should focus on getting that one improved. I'm frustrated with the current means of interacting with the developers – there is a confusing array of different "phabricators" on this, I'm not keen on the phabricator editing interface, and I don't know whether I should add to an existing phab or start a new one, so I prefer using Village Pump where I can use Wikitext. As I need to use this interface to perform specific tasks, I may report issues I have with the current interface that make it more difficult to get the job done. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Hmm... How about Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab), where we can discuss the user contributions interface? --George Ho (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Maybe. But, per "defines a solution rather than a problem" I don't know if solutions developed in the idea lab would be welcomed by the developers. I'm not happy with the "handcuffs" placed on us with regard to modes of interaction with developers. Maybe if I just present problems to WP:VPT, and let them either tell me how to achieve my desired result, or make changes to the interface that allow me to achieve my desired result. wbm1058 (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
No offense, but IMO I don't think WP:VPT is a place for general feedback on any software or something. VPT is used for technical difficulties, bugs, glitches, and other tech issues that need immediate attention (not sure whether I phrased it correctly). One complaint describing none of these, and they'll either advise you to write a personal script/gadget or write one for you as they did before. But you're welcome to choose any appropriate venue. I still think the "idea lab" is best bet. --George Ho (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
At the top of WP:VPT there is a notice "Bug reports and feature requests should be made in Phabricator" but that's just redirecting us back to an interface I find less than ideal. I don't understand why they have such an aversion to Wikitext. I think that's easiest as all active editors are intimately familiar with it. Almost everything the developers in general try to pawn off as "easier" to use, I find to be more of a pain. But venue should be secondary to getting the issues raised, so if you want to start an idea lab thread, feel free. wbm1058 (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
On second thought, I just realized that you can go to meta:Tech and then post your concerns there. The developers changed the interface all over the wikis. --George Ho (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I see, meta:Tech#"Search for contributions" date range. So, let's let the latest bug fix settle in before we try using it again. That page seems like a good place for reporting issues with the Special:Contributions interface, as I hate to go to the trouble to submit a new bug report, only to find that one's already been submitted. wbm1058 (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The major bug is fixed. George Ho (talk) 06:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Great! I complained about the new widget date-picking interface after futzing with it and not figuring out how to efficiently make it work to actually select a specific date range. I assumed that it was working as designed, and that I was just too dense to figure out the secret for making it work. So after this bug fix, which I see involves other developers than those designing the widgets (go figure, I don't exactly understand the bug report), I'm happy to report that the widget now works for me with minimal fuss. There's more than one way to skin this cat, so while this might not be my preferred way, I'm not going to fuss about it much if it works. wbm1058 (talk) 13:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

 There is still an open task to consolidate the "date pickers".

 @George Ho: FYI. After letting this settle in for several months, I'm still not satisfied with its behavior. I've entered a new Phabricator task. wbm1058 (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:AR-15 (disambiguation)Edit

Can you look into the "Update Redirect" discussion on the Talk:AR-15 (disambiguation) page. I don't like where User:Shaded0 is taking this discussion.--Limpscash (talk) 05:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Can you look at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#RAF910 discussion where User:Shaded0 is making some very serious accusations. He tried to ping you but I don't think it worked.--Limpscash (talk) 06:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent articles on the noticeboard page and the talk page discussions. I am at a bit of a loss on what the correct action should be taken next. The stated points seem to be reasonable arguments, but I feel like this argument is going to keep going in circles. Take a look also at Talk:Colt AR-15. Does it make sense continue pursing AR-15 arguments, seek additional input? I feel like I might have not too much to add here besides another vote for consensus, but any further discussion seems that it will likely further inflame opinions rather than coming to some sort of resolution. Shaded0 (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Shaded0, I'm not sure what your goals are here, i.e. specifically what you would like to accomplish. I added the {{WikiProject content advice}} template at the top of Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms § Guidelines since that advice section co-mingles both style and content advice. My sense is that you are more concerned with content than style, so it might be helpful to spit that section into separate style and content sections, if you want to focus on one but not the other. Looking at Category:WikiProject content advice I see that there are relatively few topic areas where such content-specific advice is given. I think the recent changes to Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms § Criminal use were not well thought out and too-hastily pushed through. I prefer the more longstanding previous version of that advice, and would have opposed this change. I'd like to revert to the former version. I suppose the way to overrule that local consensus would be to appeal to a wider audience with a request for comment. I'm not sure there is a well-trodden path for such appeals; it's something I'm not that familiar with as I don't often engage in high-level content debates. In any event, the Bushmaster XM-15 article still has Notoriety, Sandy Hook, and Legality sections, so if this advice-change was an attempt to remove all that in favor of nothing more than "see also" links, the advice change hasn't stuck in that article. Given that, I'm not sure how much time it's worth to pursue this. wbm1058 (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


We are being targeted by someone call Lightbreather on Twitter. Please see the sites below:



I'm not sure what to make of this. Is this the same Wikipedia User:Lightbreather that has been blocked?--Limpscash (talk) 06:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I had not seen that blog. I've heard of LB but am not familiar with the details of her block. She says she's a Cronkite School alumna, and I can believe that as it shows in the quality of her blog. I welcome good criticism, and she makes some good points. No comment on the merits of her arbitration case, but, in general it's a shame when we lose editors like this for whatever reason.
Here's the 36 edits I made on November 7 related to this. It's not immediately apparent from that how I became involved in this. I patrol Category:Articles with redirect hatnotes needing review. This 6 November 2017 edit which changed the target of AR-15 caused Colt AR-15 to land in that category by rendering its hatnote {{Redirect|AR-15}} untruthful. When I work that category, I determine how to fix it; usually that's done with only an edit or two – it's an unusual case where I end up making as many as 36 edits to correct a navigation structure that's so badly munged. LB helps explain how it got that way. This was just the beginning of my involvement in this topic area to date. A couple days later, in respose to #Talk:AR-15 (disambiguation), I made 7 more edits. Then a comment that basically wrapped up an AN/I incident.
All of this participation is time-consuming. I'm not exactly happy with the status quo, there seems a strong case that AR-15 has become a genericized trademark, and that "modern sporting rifle" is an invented term designed to forestall that genericization. So LB shouldn't take my edits as an endorsement of the status quo. I'm keeping this on my back burner. wbm1058 (talk) 02:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Please take noteEdit

Greetings! I have re-copied your prior comment supporting or opposing the move of Modern sporting rifle to AR-15 style rifle to a new Requested Move section here: Talk:Modern sporting rifle#Requested move 22 February 2018.

I wanted to stop by and give you this courtesy notice, in case you want to add, delete, or amend your comments in any way. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


...please don't give up on us, yet. 😞 I know you're busy, and I'm not expecting you to devote a whole lot of time to this project, but your input is highly beneficial and I was hoping you would keep helping us work through some of the kinks when you can, especially regarding admin factors we know little to nothing about. What we're hoping to accomplish will focus primarily on clarification and consistency in our WP:Blocking policy with the ultimate goal being editor retention. Atsme📞📧 02:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I've had some ideas about this on my back burner. Posting some relevant links here. wbm1058 (talk) 01:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
@Atsme: It's still on my to-do list, as is replying to your email! Eventually... I keep a lot of burners going on my giant stove, alas some I have to keep down low for a long time. But I let other ppl cook my Thanksgiving dinner ;) wbm1058 (talk) 01:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello wbmEdit

Hi Wbm, hope you're doing well. I noticed you declined the move I had requested. I have initiated a discussion at Talk:Synchronised_swimming#Making Artistic swimming the primary article for any opposes to the proposed move. I shall contact you again in a week or so if there's no opposition. Warmly, Lourdes 03:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

TOC experimentsEdit

I tried putting it after the first paragraph. That seems to be the best look. Free-roaming horse management in North America Lynn (SLW) (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

English Heritage lists breaking transclusion limitsEdit

Scheduled monuments in MendipEdit

Thanks for your fixes on Scheduled monuments in Mendip. I don't quite understand the code of what you are doing but if it is about the number of reference templates breaking the maximum size, would your fix work on Grade II* listed buildings in South Somerset where the last few references don't display - possibly for the same reason?— Rod talk 08:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rod, yes, similar issues there, though InternetArchiveBot hasn't visited that page recently. There is a discussion about the solution to this at User talk:cyberpower678/Archive 60#English Heritage website changed the URL syntax for accessing its site database. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
New problem reported at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Historic sites#Recent template changes broke a few list-type articles, recommend splitting them to fix the problemwbm1058 (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Re: Your edit at Template:English Heritage listed building rowEdit

In regards to the edit you made at Special:Diff/974562485, the fact that the module output is transcluded by Template:English Heritage listed building row not only means that invoking the module directly matters, it actually means that it matters twice as much! Per Wikipedia:Template_limits#Nested_transclusions, any bytes produced by the module will be counted once if {{#invoke:delink|delink}} is invoked directly, they will be counted twice if {{delink}} is used to call {{#invoke:delink|delink}}, and they will be counted four times if {{English Heritage listed building row}} calls {{delink}} which calls {{#invoke:delink|delink}}. --Ahecht (TALK
) 00:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Bill of rights pageEdit

Thank you for the changes you made to the hatnote on the Bill of rights article. I think it looks perfect! Rockstonetalk to me! 18:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  How about a Wikipedia Editors' Bill of Rights? wbm1058 (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
With the current situation with Fram, that sounds like a great idea.  . Rockstonetalk to me! 19:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Mass removal of cleanup tagsEdit

Hello. I noticed that you recently removed a large number of {{cleanup}} tags dating back over 10 years. As you noted, these tags were indeed stale, and didn't have reasons listed, but I would say that in most of those cases, the need for cleanup was completely obvious from a cursory glance at the rest of the article. As the blurb for the "Articles needing cleanup" category states: "If you're sure the article has been cleaned up, addressing any obvious flaws as well as any specific problems mentioned on the talk page, feel free to remove the tag. There's not much harm in leaving it on if you aren't certain what to do; the tag will alert someone else to come by later and check up on the article." I spend most of my time on wiki working through these articles trying to sort them out, and without those tags, the article are now "on the loose" in the wikipedia with no warning for readers of their poor quality or way of editors finding them to address their problems. Please bear in mind before deleting any more that editors do actually use these tags and categories. Cheers. Jdcooper (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jdcooper, OK. Here are my relevant 34 edits. I removed a total of 31 {{cleanup}} tags. I did notice that several had been proposed for deletion, and I suppose by removing the tags I'm keeping them from someone else noticing them and putting a PROD tag on the top. Not sure why anyone would want to spend much time to cleanup up a page that was proposed for deletion. I did make a few obvious fixes, but feel free to review them, and if you restore the template and add a reason to it, please also update the date to the current month, which will clear them out of the back end of the queue. I also noticed that in the talk archives the possibility of using a bot to remove these tags had been discussed. But, I'll move on for now to resume working on my more usual tasks, and maybe check back in on this later. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, but the problem is articles like Dick Brooks (magician) where the creator has now removed the PROD tag and a horrible mess of an article is left untagged. I've gone through and added more specific tags to the ones with obvious problems, but I feel like dumping them in the July 2019 cohort (though that is what I've done) will just leave them unloved for even longer. The reason I poke about in this area of the encyclopaedia is specifically to find the long-term worst articles. But there are always plenty more repositories of such articles, obviously! Have a nice day. Jdcooper (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

This backlog still seems to be growing faster than it's getting cleared. Category:Articles needing cleanup from December 2008, which is where I was working in July, was deleted in October 2019, and I just coincidentally found that Category:Articles needing cleanup from January 2009 was ready for deletion. So this has been getting cleared at a rate substantially slower than one per month. On to February 2009. wbm1058 (talk) 05:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in April 1917Edit

Re your edits to remove the list of shipwrecks in April 1917 from the template limit exceeded category, probably the easiest way is by replacing {{flagcountry|UKGBI|civil}} with [[File:Civil Ensign of the United Kingdom.svg|22px]] [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland|United Kingdom]]. This produces the same result visually. The UK civil flag is likely to be the most used in any shipwreck list at least until the 1950s, so changing the flag removes a large number of templates and guards against the list subsequently falling into the category again. AFAIK, no other shipwreck lists fall into the template limit exceeded category, but if you do come across any others, give me a shout and I'll fix the issue. Mjroots (talk) 07:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mjroots: I don't know about that being the "easiest way". To unpack {{flagcountry}} I needed to make a series of three substitutions, which left behind a bunch of programming logic (#if and #ifeq statements) transcluded into the article (see my recent edits to List of shipwrecks in April 1917). It's not immediately clear whether making your suggested edit loses any of that embedded functionality, though it seems not. Whereas by simply bypassing a template shell that transcludes the output of a Lua module, I'm guaranteed not to lose any embedded functionality. I think the "best" solution would be to rewrite at least some of the template logic into a Lua module, and someday I'll get around to becoming more proficient with Lua so I can more readily do that.
But there's more than one way to get the job done. Feel free to revert my edits and solve the issue another way, if you feel that's better. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Agree that there's often more than one way to get the job done. As I understand it, there is a finite number of templates that can be used in an article. Not sure of the number but being computer code it's probably a power of 2 (1,024, 2,048, 4,096 etc). Changing the flags in the way I described does remover a larg number of templates from the article. I'll not revert your changes as they had the desired effect, but I feel that the article is probably still very near the template limit. Should it fall into the category again, then we'll change the flags. Mjroots (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
@Mjroots: FYI. There are several technical limits. The limit this article hit was the Post-expand include size. Currently the article includes (transcludes) 2,007,669 bytes, and the limit is 2,097,152 bytes. So yes, it is still close to the limit. You can see this in Show preview, under "Parser profiling data" (help) – you may need to click on that if it isn't showing by default. wbm1058 (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Now 2,044,834 of 2,097,152 bytes – wbm1058 (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
The system is timing out with an error message when I try to see the diff of my edit, but I see that {{coord}} was transcluded 242 times; I believe I replaced those, e.g. {{coord|48|20|N|6|00|W}} with {{#invoke:Coordinates|coord|48|20|N|6|00|W}}. There is no difference in output: 48°20′N 6°00′W / 48.333°N 6.000°W / 48.333; -6.000 vs. 48°20′N 6°00′W / 48.333°N 6.000°W / 48.333; -6.000wbm1058 (talk) 14:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
And now it appears that four more shipwecks have been added to the list, transcluding {{coord}} rather than directly invoking the module. wbm1058 (talk) 14:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Category:Redirects from incorrect disambiguationEdit

Note to myself. On my back burner is to followup on the purpose for Category:Redirects from incorrect disambiguation. See the edit history of Assassin (movie). Also User talk:Anomie/linkclassifier#Some suggestions. Hopefully will follow up on this a few moons from now, after working through several higher-priority tasks. wbm1058 (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


I saw your complaints at User talk:IJBall#Please fix these links immediately, and I wanted to let you know that this should work for you:

mw.hook( 'LinkClassifier' ).add( function ( linkClassifier ) {
    // Delete the "incorrect-title" code
    delete linkClassifier.cats['incorrect-title'];

    // Add the "linked-misspellings" and "linked-miscapitalisations" codes, with appropriate categories.
    linkClassifier.cats['linked-misspellings'] = [
        'Category:Redirects from misspellings'
    linkClassifier.cats['linked-miscapitalisations'] = [
        'Category:Redirects from miscapitalisations'
} );
importScript('User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js'); // Linkback: [[User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js]]

Anomie 00:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe one day in P.R.Edit

  Biked in 50 states!

Hoping one day you make it to P.R. - Jose Valiente (radio MC) and bike shop owner's son- can hook you up- just need a translator. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Ohio Wikimedians User Group: May 2020 newsletterEdit

Maths redirectsEdit

Hey, Template:Maths rating hasn't been updated in a long time, and it doesn't know how to parse "class=redirect", so I've resorted to the "wrong" template to get those articles out of the "Unassessed" maintenance category to make it easier for me to maintain the assessments. I don't like it either, but I don't know enough about how the template code works to fix the real article rating template so that it can understand redirects, disambigs, and so forth. Sorry about the ugly error message on the talk page! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thanks I finally noticed that and figured out the problem last night (when I reverted myself). I started looking into making the fix and expect to finish that today. wbm1058 (talk) 11:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
@Bryanrutherford0:   Done new version of {{Maths banner}} doesn't show an error when it's on the talk page of a redirect. wbm1058 (talk) 13:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
No way! Wow, how very helpful of you! Haha thank you so much! Er, since you know how to do these things, I'll just mention that it would also be very nice if either Template:Maths banner or the main Template:Maths rating understood disambiguation pages so that I could correctly sort those, too, but either way you've already been a great help! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
@Bryanrutherford0: Just cleaning off my back burners, sorry for the long delay in responding. I looked at Category:Disambig-Class articles and was having trouble finding anything related to mathematics. Can you point me to any ambiguous titles? Or elaborate on what the issue is? I might be able to help if I understand the problem. Also, FYI, I looked at "What links here" (transclusions) to Template:WikiProject Mathematics and fixed a bunch in the template namespace. I just left eight articles that need to be rated. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for taking a look! Unless any new articles get tagged between me writing this and you reading it, all mainspace pages currently in Category:Unassessed_mathematics_articles are there because they're disambiguation pages, and the maths rating template doesn't know what to do with them. I'll look at those pages you linked; thanks for your help! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, I see Category:Mathematics disambiguation pages which has 424 members. That's populated by the mainspace template {{Mathematical disambiguation}}. Most of these just have {{WikiProject Disambiguation}} on their talk pages but no {{Maths banner}}. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
OK, I see the problem. {{Maths banner}} puts out the message Please do not use this template on article talk pages. Use Template:Maths rating instead, being sure to fill in the rating information. just like it used to on talk pages of redirects. So those unassessed articles have {{Maths rating|class=dab|importance=NA}} even though dab pages aren't rated. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Someone asked for the module I need to solve this last November and voila, I found Module:Disambiguation which looks like it will do the trick. – wbm1058 (talk) 04:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
@Bryanrutherford0: New version of {{Maths banner}} doesn't show an error when it's on the talk page of a disambiguation page. Now regarding the "path" to handling the talk pages of mathematics disambiguation pages. I fixed Talk:Path space (diff) by changing {{Maths rating}} to {{Maths banner}}. Talk:Path space is now the first article populating Category:Disambig-Class mathematics pages, a category which hasn't formally been created yet. {{Maths banner}} is what's populating the category. Actually {{WPBannerMeta}}, which {{Maths banner}} transcludes, is populating the category. Now theoretically |category=no is supposed to suppress categorization but that isn't working here and I haven't done a deep dive yet to figure out why. Also, {{Maths banner}} is populating Category:WikiProject banners with non-standard names. I don't know the background on why that category was created, or if that's a "problem". I found a May 2008 discussion relating to this at User talk:GregManninLB#Maths rating template and another May 2008 discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive 37#Proposal - List of mathematics disambiguation pages, which seems to have been redundantly archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive2008##Proposal - List of mathematics disambiguation pages. (sigh. Wikipedia editors are good at creating complexity, not so good at reducing complexity and redundancy and simplifying systems. I continue finding things needing fixed at a faster rate than I'm able to fix them all)wbm1058 (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Actually, |category=no did stop Talk:Path space from populating Category:Disambig-Class mathematics pages, but that page still links to the category. Now I see Talk:Path space populating Category:WikiProject banners with formatting errors. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
More background: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 31 § Template:WikiProject Mathematics. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


Wbm, I have drafted language for my RFCs on CNN and MSNBC, but would appreciate a quick review and any comments regarding format and neutrality of language. See: User:Blueboar/drafts. Blueboar (talk) 17:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I owe you an apologyEdit

I just ranted further about draftification at User talk:Iridescent, including a backswipe at the unnameable site for not properly considering that aspect of the AfD backlog; then I saw your post on the issue. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

No need to apologize for making me laugh. Thanks for letting me know about the fork in the discussion about Doc's fork. – No Ledge :) 02:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
When you come to a fork in a discussion, take it. – Yogi 02:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

From the Administrators' newsletter: Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely 1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created.

The RfC closed on 13 September 2020. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I highly recommend {{ISBN|978-1-59448-745-3}}Edit

{{ISBN|978-1-59448-745-3}} links to :

Oko5ekmi5 (talk) 09:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia peaked in 2008? Oh, wow! Google has updated data to 2019! The answer is NO! Check back in 10 years to see whether Wikipedia peaked in 2019; its growth curve does seem to be flattening.
I'm not sure what your problem is, all of the searches still work for me, including the one you say "does not work".
Anyways, this is the book. Uncharted: Big Data as a Lens on Human Culture, a 2013 book by Erez Aiden and Jean-Baptiste Michel. It's been six years since I read Uncharted; I could use a refresher. Alas, my local library seems to have disposed of its copy (I missed my chance to pick it up for a buck). But can still borrow it as an e-book or buy a hard copy from Amazon's marketplace for $8 or $9. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Steve BannonEdit

At BLPN and the main article no specific text was purposed or particularly discussed. More just if there should be something in general. Are you sure you want the closes at both to have specific wording? PackMecEng (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll revise my close to address your question. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Cool beans, thanks for the clarifications! PackMecEng (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Wbm1058, Since you have closed the discussion at Talk:Steve Bannon and at WP:BLPN, can you also close the request for closure at WP:RFCC at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Talk:Steve_Bannon#Addition_of_Aug_2020_arrest_to_lead_combined_with_WP:BLPN#Should_the_arrest_of_a_notable_person_be_in_the_lead_of_their_BLP_->_Steve_Bannon as well. Thanks. :-) Octoberwoodland (talk) 06:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
  Done – thanks for letting me know about that. wbm1058 (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


Hi Wbm1058, Many thanks. Tiredness led me to pile one screw up on another. Thanks for the tidying up. Acad Ronin (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Quick note on Talk:Raa Raa (2011 film)Edit

I just forgot that, Thanks. Don’t worry I have fixed the links and created the Dab page as discussed. Best regards Megan☺️ Talk to the monster 12:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Possible work-around for phabricator:T166946Edit

Please see my protected edit request in Template talk:Last edited by.

I'm asking you to look at it because I assume you control User:*wbm1058 and can use that account to test the change.

Similar changes may need to be made to other templates that call the REVISIONUSER magic word. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. I had forgotten about this account but fortunately I didn't forget where I wrote down the password. – *wbm1058 (talk) (contributions) 19:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Template catsEdit

Mr Wbm1058 - I just created the template [hyperbole] but I'm not sure if I added the categories correctly because they're not showing up like they do in an article. If you get time, would you be so kind as to take a look at it? Atsme Talk 📧 14:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Atsme: it looks to me like you just created an unintentional fork of Template:Intentional hyperbole... and that's not hyperbole! LOL – wbm1058 (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
That one is for copy editing, mine is for humor. Is that a problem? Atsme Talk 📧 15:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC) See Template:Hyper
Template:Hyperbole redirects to Template:Peacock term, which is used on articles in main space.
Template:Hyper and Template:Intentional hyperbole both seem to be intended for indicating humor. The latter includes Template:Humor disclosure templates in its documentation. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Ok, so I added some templates, and now there's a category that says it's Template needing substitution which is explained Category_talk:Templates_needing_substitution_checking#Why? in language that you may understand because it is foreign to me. I just want to add [hyperbole] to the collapsable Humor disclosure templates and don't know how. Atsme Talk 📧 16:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Re: "Templates needing substitution checking": Took me some trial & error edits to hunt it down. Template:April fools is the culprit (it's in the template documentation). That template does indeed transclude {{Fix}}. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I fixed that issue with this edit to Template:April fools. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
@Atsme: I just made {{hyper}} a template shortcut. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you so much!!! (not [hyperbole], not   , and not  [stretch]) Atsme Talk 📧 13:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC) <-- Noticed in preview that the close parenthesis following the stretch template is sent to the next line.   Did I screw-up code somewhere in that template? It doesn't move to next line if closed after hyper, but does after What if? and stretch. Atsme Talk 📧 13:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


Please block user:2601:601:0:4a20:5477:8a43:b0f5:1be3 ASAP. CLCStudent (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Checking contributions.   Done wbm1058 (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Restoring to pageEdit

Hello Wbm1058, would it be OK to restore at least some of the content to the Maiorana surname page? --2A02:C7F:3846:4500:DC4F:5FA4:1BA6:A16B (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

What do you want to restore to Maiorana? wbm1058 (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Mainly the origin of the name and appropriate categories, --2A02:C7F:3846:4500:9054:35AB:9C27:6E3A (talk) 04:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

It appears that this was removed based on the opinion of just one editor, so I see no problem with restoring that content based on WP:BRD. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

M-16 motorway (Pakistan)Edit

M-16 motorway (Pakistan)

It was formerly "Swat Expressway" but now under construction "Swat Motorway". In fact Swat Expressway is being upgraded to Swat Motorway.


I believe it will be better to merge "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swat_Expressway" into "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=M-16_motorway_(Pakistan)&redirect=no". And delete "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swat_Motorway&redirect=no". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karachi Kings Dr (talkcontribs) 19:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Karachi Kings Dr: Please do not move pages by cut & paste. From the editing and page moving history and the discussion on Talk:Swat Expressway, this is clearly a contested move. The majority of the cited sources still call it Swat Expressway. I am not familiar with the distinction between the terms "expressway" and "motorway" as used in Pakistan. To me, these words are more-or-less synonyms. You were already advised in the edit summary here to start a discussion to gain a consensus to change the title of this article. Please follow the instructions at WP:Requested moves. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_expressways_of_Pakistan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karachi Kings Dr (talkcontribs) 07:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

https://diffsense.com/diff/expressway/motorway — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karachi Kings Dr (talkcontribs) 08:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Karachi Kings Dr: Thanks for the links. In the future, please sign your talk page edits in compliance with the Wikipedia:Signatures guideline. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 12:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Help to create an article for protected nameEdit

@Wbm1058: Hello sir, I need your help for creating an article on a celebrity. The name has been protected due to multiple attempts by some banned user in 2018. Please check here. I request you to release the name. The celebrity is not having page in her name because of the action of some banned user back in 2018. Rickyurs (talk)
Please create the article at Draft:Swastika Dutta. When it's ready for publishing, I or another administrator can move it over the protected page. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 05:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
@Wbm1058: Sir, I have created the article at Draft:Swastika Dutta. It's ready for publishing as I have completed it, please move it over the protected page. Thanks, Rickyurs (talk)
@Wbm1058: Thank you. Rickyurs (talk)

List of GANs per nominatorEdit

Hi Wbm1058, I hope you are well. About this topic, did we get any further with this? I feel like it was a bit forgotten and archived, but I'd be very interested in continuing to find a full list of GANs by nominators. I'd love to help get something like this off the ground (I should be a little bit closer to the top 40 now, I've promoted another 30 or so since the discussion)! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Lee I lost momentum on this and let it drift to my back burners. I'll keep it on my to-do list and try to get back to it. Juggling a lot of balls, as usual, and as you can see from the sections above, new requests for my time keep coming in, making it harder to stay focused on more time-intensive projects. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Not an issue. I thought about it earlier, and I didn't know if anyone was actively looking at it or not. I've also been busy, so haven't had much time for much! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


Hi Wbm1058, you did some great work in listing GAs per user a while back. I wondered if you'd consider doing it again and/or doing it periodically? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski and The Rambling Man: – I'm running a new report now, using the last version of my PHP program from 26 July 2020. I started one last night, and it almost completed but died because the drive-by editor Sai5839448 put Category:Lists of good articles back into Category:Good articles, after I had previously removed it. A category is neither an article nor a Good Article. I removed the category and restarted my program from the beginning, and hopefully it will generate a report several hours from now. It will still have the inaccuracies I have yet to get around to addressing, but perhaps is "good enough" for your purposes. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, thank you. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 17:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Great work - it's certainly a start, and good for rough amounts. :) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • This is some great work! I was wondering why this credits me with 88, but I credit myself with 96, but then I realised it isn't including articles that went through GA and later became FAs. This seems like a sensible conclusion, but worth mentioning.
For me, the next point would be how we go from here, to a full list similar to user:GA bot/Stats lists reviews done by user. This would be with the view to have a bot maintain a full list similar to how Legobot does now. At least with a full list, we can identify the GAs with issue nominators, and come to a conclusion as to whom should be credited; and get a pseudo-definative list.
Once again though, fantastic work, I'm very happy to see this. I'll try my best to move up the order a bit! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversaryEdit

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks. It's been six years since I was a candidate in the 2014 Arbitration Committee elections. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


Is it usual to redirect the talk page to the talk page of a #REDIRECT article? I know I have written on talk pages for redirects, among others to discuss whether they should have their own article. Thanks. Gah4 (talk) 05:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Gah4, not all redirects need to have talk pages. If they do, it is often as a result of a page move. When a page is moved, its talk page should be moved with it, and the move usually leaves the {{R from move}} template behind on both the article and its talk page. But feel free to remove the redirect and {{R from move}} if you want to start a discussion on the {{Talk page of redirect}}. Sure if a redirect is tagged with {{R with possibilities}} feel free to use the talk page to discuss the possibilities. Generally if there are discussions on a talk page they shouldn't be replaced with a redirect, unless they are very trivial discussions, though I've seen editors do that. Sometimes there are nothing but WikiProject templates on the talk page of a redirect, some including me don't really see the value in that though I suppose the practice is fairly harmless.
If your query arises from my recent edits, the project I'm currently working on was prompted by reports of problems with my RMCD bot edits. See #Cross-namespace redirects and #Redirects from namespace 1 to namespace 0. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. The specific case is talk:ektacolor. Sometimes I write on the talk page the reason for the redirect, if it isn't so obvious. I might not have on this one. Gah4 (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Gah4, as I am making hundreds of similar edits, to save time on a lot of them I am just leaving the standard system-generated edit summaries, but on some I use the summary "don't cross-namespace redirect a talk page to an article" which is the underlying reason I made that edit. I removed your signature as standard practice is not to sign redirects; one can look in the edit history to see who created the redirect.
I tagged Vericolor and Ektacolor with the {{R with possibilities}} template. Feel free to replace the redirect at Talk:Ektacolor with a note similar to to the one you posted at Talk:Vericolor. I've not heard of these brands before, but do remember using Ektachrome back in the day. Been years since I last used my film cameras that I still have stored in a drawer. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I don't know about the cross namespace post. I think it was supposed to be a comment on what I did, but without thinking that it would actually be a redirect. It wasn't intended to be a cross redirect. Ok, thanks for fixing it. Gah4 (talk) 20:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Oh, also, Ektacolor and Vericolor are the professional versions of Kodacolor, color negative film. In the case of Ektachrome there is just Ektachrome professional (well, maybe not any more), but in the negative films they have different names. I don't know why they did that. Gah4 (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
OK, so does #REDIRECT only work if it is the absolute first thing on the page? If I put something else before it, even space, it wouldn't actually redirect? Thanks. Gah4 (talk) 20:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that's right. Has to be first. Then of course there was Kodak's most famous film brand. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Redirect bypassEdit

Hi, I see you are changing links from Natural History Museum to Natural History Museum, London. This practice is deprecated. Please see WP:NOTBROKEN. DuncanHill (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: oh, but it is broken: fixed Sirindhorn, fixed Government Museum and Art Gallery, Chandigarh, fixed Pakistan Museum of Natural History, fixed Museo di Storia Naturale di Venezia, fixed NTNU University Museum, fixed Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture, fixed Botanical Garden of the University of Coimbra, fixed Florida Museum of Natural History, fixed Koch family foundationswbm1058 (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Those are not what I am talking about. You are changing correct uses of the redirect in order to avoid it. "Piping links solely to avoid redirects is generally a time-wasting exercise that can actually be detrimental. It is almost never helpful to replace redirect with redirect". DuncanHill (talk) 20:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Talk:Natural History Museum, London § Requested move moved Natural History MuseumNatural History Museum, London in June 2013 (diff). The sysop who closed that RM then redirected Natural History Museum to Natural History Museum (disambiguation) but that redirect was WP:MALPLACED. So @15:47, 29 June 2013 another sysop moved page Natural History Museum (disambiguation) to Natural History Museum without leaving a redirect (per WP:MALPLACED). Then that disambiguation page was converted to a WP:Broad-concept article (diff). Soon after that, another sysop moved Natural History MuseumNatural history museum (diff) as the article described the generic term. From 1 July 2013 to 12 July 2017 (for 4 years) the proper name Natural History Museum targeted the generic term Natural history museum. During that time none of the nine links I fixed (listed above) would have been broken. But then an IP redirected to Natural History Museum, London (diff) giving the rationale "Users typing in the specific capitalised version are not going to be looking for a generic article, but the museum by that specific name". Within minutes the redirect was changed again, to target List of natural history museums (diff). The name is not unique; there are also Natural History Museum, Berlin and Natural History Museum, Vienna. The redirect has been targeting Natural History Museum, London for the past three years, since it was changed on 20 November 2017 (diff) with the rationale "Natural History Museum is a proper name, not a generic name. The capitialisation is most likely deliberate. The link to list of natural history museums messes up thousands of template links." As seen by some of the fixes I listed above, editors sometimes deliberately use title case in infoboxes when they intend to link to the generic topic and not to a specific museum. Most of those "thousands of template links" were caused by Module:Taxonbar/conf and I made them go away with this edit. Those links had all arisen since that module was created on 28 May 2017. Now there are just 140 links left that will need disambiguation when Natural History Museum no longer targets the London museum. – wbm1058 (talk) 05:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


Why should this result in an error per Special:Diff/913468459/977902992? What was that change trying to accomplish? –MJLTalk 04:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@MJL: It's telling you not to put that template on that page, because Nira Tandon, which I just tagged with {{R from misspelling}}, is not an article, it's a redirect. Template:R from remote talk page is only intended for placement on redirects to centralized talk pages, i.e. Talk pages where the content of multiple articles is discussed. There are just a few pages tagged this way: see here For example, the content of the article List of Intel Pentium M (Yonah)-based Xeon microprocessors is discussed on Talk:List of Intel Xeon processors rather than Talk:List of Intel Pentium M (Yonah)-based Xeon microprocessors, which is where the template is placed. – wbm1058 (talk) 05:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
[Thank you for the ping] Okay, well can you clarify that in the template documentation at least? The difference between {{R from remote page}} and {{R for convenience}} has always been kind of hazy for me because it isn't really explained anywhere. –MJLTalk 05:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Can user: please be blocked ASAP for vandalism. CLCStudent (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Checking Special:Contributions/   Donewbm1058 (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Slow as Christmas!!Edit

🔔🎁⛄️🎅🏻 Atsme 💬 📧 05:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)


Yo Ho HoEdit

Merry Christmas, wbm1058!Edit

Edits to Bonus ArmyEdit

I noticed that you've edited this article in the past. It's been receiving a lot of editing attention since the January 6th Insurrection/Storming at the US Capitol, some good, some bad. I'm sure it will continue to be on a lot of people's radar with Trump's impeachment and the ongoing unrest in the Unites States. I've put in a request for any kind of temporary protection at RPP but there's quite a backlog over there so if you could maybe take a look... greatly appreciated, etc. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I responded there. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Full rigged shipEdit

Hi Wbm1058! I see you reverted my changes to add {{R from misspelling}} to the redirect Full rigged ship. I made that edit based on Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 81#Full rigged ship by Chris the speller. GoingBatty (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: re: "The bot will not make changes that are not visible to the reader (e.g. will not change [[Full rigged ship|full-rigged]])."
That doesn't clear the page from Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked misspellings, which doesn't care whether the link is visible to the reader or not. wbm1058 (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the bot doesn't fix all instances of Full rigged ship. The point I was trying to make was that Chris the speller indicated that "Full rigged ship" was a misspelling "according to well-known dictionaries and common understanding of compound modifiers". GoingBatty (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
OK, I was not aware of the discussion and your bot request. But, if consensus is to tag this as a misspelling for the Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked misspellings patrol to fix, then the consensus also allows the necessary "cosmetic edits" to be made to get the redirect off of that report. wbm1058 (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  Fixed manually - thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for helping with that, GoingBatty! wbm1058 (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Any thoughts on Douglas Murray (politician)?Edit

From what I can tell, the decision was to delete. Aren't you lucky you have the tools to do just that, unless there's an issue? Atsme 💬 📧 19:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Atsme. The consensus was to delete David Burke. Right, it's odd we had these biographies while at the same time resisting inclusion of Theresa Greenfield. You could just propose Douglas Murray for deletion; that doesn't qualify for a speedy. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

::I missed that...two different people using the same article. Was there a move that I missed? How did that happen? Atsme 💬 📧 19:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC) Nevermind, I see what happened. 20:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  • PS: WP:GNG has requirements, and Jimbo's persuasion during the campaign is why Greenfield has an article. We typically don't create articles about losing candidates because of WP:10YT. She only had 4,200 pageviews and in another year, will be forgotten. Liken it to handing out blue ribbons to everyone just because they showed up. Atsme 💬 📧 20:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

"Facist" redirectEdit

To keep this template call out of the section title: Facist

At first glance, you probably meant to change the parameter on {{R from misspelling}} rather than {{R avoided double redirect}}.

However, according to the edit summary provided by @Damian Yerrick: when retargeting Facist: It's a misspelling for both "Fascist" and "Face-ist", both of which have an article, so point at disambiguation page

Emphasis mine; similarly for Facism, retargeted by the same user to the same target, with the corresponding summary just replacing -ist with -ism.

If you think this is an implausible justification for the redirects, they should probably be reverted to a previous target. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

SoledadKabocha, by reverting me, you have put Facism back onto the Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked misspellings report. Facist links to Facism, which has been tagged as a misspelling. "This is a redirect from an alternative title for Facism" implies that Facism is a correct title so the templates are contradicting each other. Frankly my mind spins when I try to understand what these templates are trying to say or do and what their purpose is here. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Apologies for not checking the database report first. The best course of action I can come up with is to just remove {{R avoided double redirect}} from this particular redirect (ED: which I see you have already done). If you want to codify as a guideline that {{R avoided double redirect}} should not be used for misspellings, that is a discussion for elsewhere (which I will not be pursuing for several days at least). --SoledadKabocha (talk) 04:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much ...Edit

... for all of the effort you put into cleaning up Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked misspellings. For a long time, I had kept track of the litterally millions of items that I always skipped over when patrolling the list, so it's quite a pleasant surprise to see a compact list of items that can actually be fixed. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 23:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I try to drop by now & then to clear out the more troublesome items there, as I juggle the many tasks jockeying for my attention. A longer-term project of mine is to get Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations down to manageable size as well, but just when I feel like I've made some real progress there I find more litter has been dumped on that pile. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

RSN / RfC: Sherdog.com Closure MessEdit

Hello, an uninvolved editor named Buidhe closed Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_318#RfC:_Sherdog.com some time ago with the consensus for option 2 but somehow he used the explanation for option 3 in this [2]. That caused some confusion and then some editors in favour of option 1 complained about it here at User_talk:Buidhe/Archive_12#RFC_closure. Then Buidhe changed his closure 2 weeks later in this [3], again, and disregarded votes. He gave the explanation for why he changed the closure and disregarded votes 2 weeks later here at the complaint section User_talk:Buidhe/Archive_12#RFC_closure again. Apperantly he thought 5 options were confusing for editors who voted in the RfC and other editors perhaps voted for wrong options without knowing. So he didn't come to any straightforward conclusion and in the end the closure has become a mess that didn't close anything or reflect the consensus outcome of the RfC (or anything at all for one option or the other) although it was a pretty easy and short one with a rather clear rough consensus.

It would be far better if an experienced administrator like you closed the RfC once and for all, and erase this mess the closing editor caused because it affects a lot of articles in the Wiki and cause edit wars that rely on that RfC. Thanks in advance. (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, you've edited here using two different IP addresses, and I see User talk:Eddie891#RSN / RfC: Sherdog.com Closure Mess and User talk:WOSlinker#RSN / RfC: Sherdog.com Closure Mess. Can you imagine how I would feel if I spent an hour or more reading through the multiple discussions and composing my response only to find myself in an edit conflict with another admin because you had not bothered to inform me about all the editors who you were shopping for a review of the previous closes?
Tell me what you think the "rather clear rough consensus" is. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
See Sherdog and Talk:Sherdog#How reliable is Sherdog really? From the article lead, "The site... provides MMA related content for ESPN.com". So, it seems that ESPN considers it to be reliable; if we doubt the reliability of this site that could mean we doubt the reliability of ESPN as well, by extension. Perhaps at one time it was self-published by Jeff Sherwood, but, also per the article, "Jeff Sherwood and his namesake website parted ways". – wbm1058 (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)