I agree with your choice of links. Could you post to the talk page and maybe the discussion I started at WP:FTN? I can understand Baldwin's supporters wanting this to point to NWO (politics) but this is an encyclopedia. Dougweller (talk) 05:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
FYI: turned the dab page into stub article and reverted a bunch of your edits requesting disambiguation of links. {{dn}} is still appropriate for post-1970 years. This was a case of a missing article masked by a dab. Renata (talk) 08:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Excellent, thank you very much. We have too many of these thorny, seemingly unsolvable knots to untie. Cheers! bd2412T 14:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Changed into a redirect, can stop disambiguating the links. It's really silly to have such a prominent dab page... Renata (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I'd already finished! However, I agree with the redirect. bd2412T 01:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I'm a newbie. I created a wiki page for an author named Peter Golden (middle name: Allen). There is another wiki page for Peter Benjamin Golden that is set to redirect from "Peter Golden." This makes it difficult to find the entry for the other Peter Golden. I see that you repaired the disambig pages with links for the Peter Benjamin Golden entry. Would you be willing to help me address this redirect situation. I believe that "Peter Golden" should take users to a disambig page with links to both Peter Allen Golden and Peter Benjamin Golden. But I don't know how to go about this process. Thanks for any help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DuncanCrary (talk • contribs)
Hello. I see that it has been solved. Regards, TBloemink (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing ambiguities in the "Enzo Martinelli" entry
Hello, I saw your edits to the "Enzo Martinelli" entry, pointing out the ambiguity of the term "Università di Roma": I corrected all the links. Thank you for remembering me this common mistake: it is due to the fact that the Sapienza University of Rome is far older than the other two, therefore sources about its famous alumni often omit to precise its entire name, referring implicitly to it. Daniele.tampieri (talk) 12:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Ehm... maybe I forgot to change a few links. Again thank you. :D Daniele.tampieri (talk) 15:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
BD2412, I noticed in your article for market participants and in the United States section of public universities, you mentioned that the SCOTUS declared that reduced tuition rates for state residents was Constitutional on the basis that the state acted as a market participant. I realize this occurred in 2005 and I am asking a lot of your recall ability, but is there any way that you could you site that particular case? Thanks for your help. J1.grammar natz (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I can't put my finger on a case at the moment. There is Sturgis v. State of Washington, 368 F.Supp. 38 (W.D. Wash.), aff'd. mem., 414 U.S. 1057 (1973), wherein a three-judge panel of a district court made such a finding, and was summarily affirmed by the Supreme Court. bd2412T 21:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
This is in regards to the expansion of this article you made about 2 years ago, and specifically one statement. I had previously flagged this as needing attention on another talk page, but perhaps you may not have seen that.
The United States Congress organized Alaska as one judicial district on July 7, 1958 by 72 Stat. 339, authorizing one judgeship for the U.S. district court,...
The statute referenced above is the Alaska Statehood Act. Alaska has had a United States District Court since 1884. The court started out with one judge based in Sitka, then expanded to 3 judges in 1900, and 4 judges from 1909 until the end of territorial days. Obviously, the Statehood Act addressed the transition away from the total federal jurisdiction which existed in the territory.
I'm not sure whether the solution is to create another article specifically addressing pre-statehood, or include it in this article
The way the above text reads tends to give the impression that Alaska has only had a United States District Court since 1958. That needs to be corrected, since people are running with that statement as if it were gospel.
No offense intended, but I am NOT a fan of cutting and pasting information just because it's in the public domain, without properly vetting the information first. I see far too much of it on here already. In fact, the plethora of false information I would get in e-mails, that I could trace back to cut and paste jobs from Wikipedia articles, is one of the things which got me involved in this in the first place.RadioKAOS (talk) 06:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Prior to the organization of Alaska as a state, it had a territorial court lacking Article III protections, not a true Article III United States District Court. The information "cut and pasted" into the article comes from the United States Federal Judicial Center, an agency of the federal courts whose sole function is to provide accurate information on the Article III courts. Although it may omit information about courts in pre-Article III status, it is the primary authority on the Article III courts. However, I would welcome the addition of material about the territorial court which preceded the current court. If such information is to be added, it should all be in one place, the article being short enough as it is. Cheers! bd2412T 15:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
You made this change to the article Contact: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Contact_(film)&diff=416061060&oldid=415858899 I don't understand why you took the time to do this. I can see by your user page that this is called "fix a disambiguation link". I understand that this means Wikipedia must do some work to convert "First Amendment" to "First Amendment to the United States Constitution" and that your fix relieves Wikipedia of future instances of this work but is this really a good use of your time? I am kind of a beginner here at Wikipedia and like to understand what's going on. GroveGuy (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
We have over 780,000 current disambiguation links - down from a peak of 1.3 million in mid-2009 - and are constantly working to bring that number to zero, where it belongs. A disambig link is an error, a link to the wrong place, and needs to be fixed just as surely as a spelling or grammatical error. While some of these links are comparatively innocuous because a user clicking through to the disambig can easily pick out the correct answer, others (such as human name disambiguations) can be very tricky. Even the easy ones take extra time for users trying to navigate our encyclopedia, so we try to fix them all. bd2412T 21:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi - I note you made a minor adjustment to Rita Moss, and inserted a link to Deer under Hart. Although the word Hart is old English for the word deer, I think this link is oblique and unhelpful since in this instance "Hart" represents a surname, not a word. If it links anywhere, it should link to a page of Lorenz Hart the songwriter.
Peter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pzzp (talk • contribs) 13:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I believe you have it wrong about disambiguation pages. If there are a number of meanings for a title and no very definite main topic it should be a disambiguation page. Making it into a normal article stops editors trawling round Wikipedia and fixing the links properly. It is better if the links are fixed as soon a spossible but they will be eventually anyway if it is a disambiguation page. Dmcq (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I see you're an active dabber and I was wondering what you thought about the recent change to turn Emmy into a disambiguation page (instead of a redirect to Emmy Award with hatnotes). About 1,700 links to "Emmy" (per The Daily Disambig) — I'd be surprised if the awards weren't the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in this case. I'm unsure how to proceed in calling this to others' attention, so I'm posting here. Thanks! Woodshed (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Please read the guidelines about disambiguation rather than engaging in silly point edits as you did at paper folding. The article there was scappy and useless and origami is the main topic about paper folding. It was not being developed after three years and the main content was duplicated bit which had little relevance. Disambiguation is about disambiguating topics that might be meant by what a user types not the exact wording. And could you please contribute on the talk page of the article instead of by user talk too. Dmcq (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Concerning your revert of my edit to the intellect dab page:
There is no doubt that intellect and intelligence are related words. There is also no doubt that intellect is a more technical and less everyday meaning. Intelligence is the more common (and more fuzzy) modern word. Do you agree? (In other words they do not mean exactly the same thing in most people's ear, nor in the dictionary, nor in publications where they are discussed.)
You mentioned the articles being now given as potential meanings of intellect in the dab are "distantly minor". That is true. Intelligence is a more common term. Intellect is a less common "distantly minor" term, and some people will actually want to know what it means.
Intellect actually has its own article, an article which is precisely about the meaning of the word intellect itself, which is not precisely the same as intelligence: The article nous just happens to have its main name using the even less well known Greek work which means exactly intellect in most contexts where these words are used. The article name probably should be "intellect", and maybe it will be eventually. However the article does not look like a contender for merging with intelligence.
Obviously when a word has an article about the exact meaning, we can not make that word redirect to a more common but less exact meaning? There is no policy or priority in the Wikipedia community to divert people looking specifically for "distantly minor" words away from the exact meaning they are looking for and towards a more common word?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages; a "Foo" title can not redirect to a "Foo (disambiguation)" title. Also, the policy you are asking about "to divert people looking specifically for "distantly minor" words" is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and it is policy. The solution, for those seeking "distantly minor" terms is a hatnote at the redirect target. bd2412T 19:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
What we have here is a word with its own notable article. It just happens to be a philosophical term, but intellect is normally a philosophical term. (Please try googling the word "intellect".) You are redirecting it, not even allowing this to go via a dab, straight to an article with another (but related) meaning. That's plain wrong, and nothing in the policy pages you direct to say otherwise. If your only point is that a primary meaning must be chosen and this primary meaning must not go via a dab page, then this is easy to fix because the primary meaning of intellect is obviously intellect, which is the exact subject of an article already.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, saw your new edit summary and see this in indeed probably what you mean so hopefully this is now fixed by my next edits after that. Let me know if you see any problem.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I have no problem with that; it just can't redirect to a disambiguation page. Cheers! bd2412T 19:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
This solution has been objected to, for similar reasons that the opposite solution are a concern for any editor concerned to look after the interests of readers looking up the philosophical term. See discussion here. Do we really need to pick a primary meaning in all such cases?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Have replied where you replied, not sure I see your answer there! :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I've been trying to update this report, but it runs for several days straight and then something goes wrong on the toolserver before it can complete. Very frustrating, and there is another toolserver maintenance window scheduled for Sunday night so it's not even worth starting it again until after that. Maybe you should work with JaGa's report in the meantime. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate the update - thanks! bd2412T 14:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi there! I noticed that you're "archiving to the page history" the old warnings on IP talk pages. This indeed used to be the recomended process at WP:UW, but more lately the {{old IP warnings top}} and {{old IP warnings bottom}} templates have been developed and seem to be prefered. Thought you might like to know! —Elipongo (Talkcontribs) 05:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not interested in collapsing old warnings, as that does nothing to alleviate link load. I believe that, in addition to all the other things Wikipedia is not, it is not a permanent archive of ancient vandalism from IP addresses that have not been active for years. bd2412T 05:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough! I'm sorry to have made you defensive though, my sincere apologies if I came off as demanding in any way. Both methods are of course valid, I just thought you might like to know about other options if you didn't already. Happier editing! —Elipongo (Talkcontribs) 07:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
All is well. Cheers! bd2412T 16:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm aware of the need to work on interwiki links in those articles (like to de:). I've just been so focused on getting the basic template articles started that I haven't done that part yet. I'm glad someone posted to my talk page; I was beginning to wonder if anyone noticed! ;) Bumm13 (talk) 05:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
And as of 08:08 UTC, all 214 Kangxi radicals have some sort of article now! No more red links! \o/ Bumm13 (talk) 08:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
There has been a major revision of the the Service Awards: the edit requirements for the higher levels have been greatly reduced, to make them reasonably attainable.
Because of this, your Service Award level has been changed, and you are now eligible for a higher level. I have taken the liberty of updating your award on your user page.
Actually you were already way over the edit requirement, but you were eligible on February 20 to upgrade because of the passage of time, so I upgraded you anyway. Herostratus (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
In light of my current employment, it is probably best that I avoid commenting on this particular issue. Cheers! bd2412T 02:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thank you. Do you mind if I ask you a question? You don't have to answer if there's a conflict of some sort. There's a copyright question that I think needs to be addressed by the Wikimedia Foundation. Regular editors talking among ourselves is not getting us anywhere. We need a serious legal opinion as it relates to existing policy, and not just consensus among uninformed editors. Can you offer any guidance? Is the Law Portal a good place to find experienced copyright experts? If you feel uncomfortable answering, that's ok. I'm just trying to figure out the best thing to do. Thank you, USchick (talk) 02:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
The WMF has a general counsel - it was Brad Patrick for a while, though I can't recall off the top of my head if the post is filled right now, and if so, by who. bd2412T 02:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Update - the info is at [1]. Cheers! bd2412T 02:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much!!!!! :-) USchick (talk) 02:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi BD2412, thanks for the heads up on my Talk page about disambiguations. I am trying to fill in the remaining 2-character combinations as disambiguations and haven't quite gotten all the MoS down yet. I appreciate your fixing my malformed ones. To that end, I noticed that the number-letter combos have navigation to adjacent articles in the series, e.g. the Navigate box at 1B (disambiguation). Do you think that would be helpful for the two-letter combinations as well, with vertical for the first latter and horizontal for the second letter? If so, can we use the same template? If we need a different one, do you know how to make one of those templates, or where I could make further inquiries? Thanks! Jokestress (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome! Yes, the same navbox works for just letters (see BB); you can basically copy it from there and just plug in the set appropriate for whatever page you are working on. The template is also already set to automatically pipe through the "Foo (disambigution)" redirect. Cheers! bd2412T 21:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, It would be good to find some sources connecting the two items. Do you have any ideas? Tkuvho (talk) 14:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I did a quick Google books search, and found plenty of discussions of formula using both terms, but none contrasting them. bd2412T 14:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Moses/Archive 1, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tbhotch* ۩۞ 02:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I am fixing disambiguation links, and will continue to do so. Please see the top of this page for the reason why. Please note also that fixing disambig links on talk pages reduces link load, keeps editors mindful of such links, and preserves the intent of the editor who made the link where the target page has been renamed after a comment was left. Cheers! bd2412T 02:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Sprint Center. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. That is not a justification, those comments are not on userpages are at talkpages and must not be changed Tbhotch* ۩۞ 02:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh for Pete's sake, I've been an admin here since before you knew how to leave an edit summary, and I can tell you with certainty that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a static record of talk page disambig links. Where the original page has been moved after the link was left, it is not vandalism to point the link to the page to which the original editor intended to point it. bd2412T 02:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I presume they were referring to the American Chris Brown where the comment was discussing the influence of an American R&B group, and where the American singer is the only Chris Brown to be working in that genre. I know this because I regularly disambiguate links to Chris Brown. This encyclopedia has over 750,000 disambig links in article space alone, and eliminating disambig links on talk pages reduces overall link load and makes it easier to find the links that require repair. Your reversion of my edits just makes it harder to find and fix all the links that need fixing, and is harmful to the encyclopedia. bd2412T 02:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Between "I presume" to "I asked the original author" is a big step. I recommend you to stop at this point, a disambiguation link won't hurt Wikipedia in any way as you are saying and trying to act like a victim, when in fact you, utilize an "ignore all rules" argument for do mala praxis. Tbhotch* ۩۞ 02:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Tbhotch, take a read of WP:DTTR. Also, you might ask yourself if your edits improved the encyclopedia in any way. If not, why did you make them? Prodegotalk 02:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Typical in Wikipedia, an admin defending another. If you are going to gnore all rules, Why I do not start refactoring others' comments as well?]], I think because I have not a mop. Tbhotch* ۩۞ 02:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Such a minor change isn't going to hurt anything. It might not be too hard for BD2412 to restrict his disambig fixes to the mainspace, particularly if using something like AWB. Perhaps you should have asked him if he could do that instead of templating him. Prodegotalk 03:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
So, you are saying that I have to follow an essay and not a guideline, really, how do you have that mop icon on your pages? Also, I do not give a damn about the disambiguation links, but I give it to his typographical refactores without the permission of their respective authors. Also Prodego I warned him and he only replied, see my talkpage, and continue, how many times I hve to wait him to stop? Never due to his status? Tbhotch* ۩۞ 03:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
What he is doing isn't hurting anything. You could (and probably should) ask, but warning him with a template isn't the best response here. Prodegotalk 03:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I reserve the right of warn any editor on Wikipedia, and unless you manage to make that essay a rule/police/guideline, I won't stop in doing it. Being a regular editor does not automatically means that you are an exception to the rules nor you have the right in doing everything you want just because you want to "ignore it". Now I have better things to do than trying to point his errors to an admin and his wikilawyer. Tbhotch* ۩۞ 03:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Asking other editors to stop doing something you feel is a policy violation is fine. Telling experienced editors they are wrong via template is disruptive. You should assume good faith in their actions. Warning experienced editors with templates, such as this, with the purpose of causing disruption, is liable to result in blocks. I'd also ask you refrain from personal attacks, as some of your comments above could be interpreted. Prodegotalk 03:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Let's not go down the road of suggesting blocks and interpreting comments as personal attacks. The typographic fixes, while not the point of the edits, are a function of an AWB setup designed to fix the largest number of errors in the most efficient manner possible. Quite frankly, it would be a waste of time to pay any mind to those. However, Tbhotch objected to my disambig fixes, and I explained exactly why those provide a benefit to the encyclopedia as a whole that overrides concerns about maintaining a permanent record of talk page disambig links. If this is insufficient, the appropriate response is for the aggrieved user to seek an RFC on the question, which would provide for an authoritative resolution to this dispute. bd2412T 03:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Blocking me from editing because I warned your friends Prodego is a clear violation of the blocking policy. Tbhotch* ۩۞ 04:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not saying I'm going to block you, and I have no intention to. I'm saying you should keep in mind other policies. What I am suggesting is that you try asking nicely before giving warnings, it leads to a much better environment for everyone. For what it is worth BD, I agree with Tbhotch that you should avoid disambiguating on talk pages, and keep it in the article space. AWB does have an option for this, IIRC. It's been a while since I've used it. Prodegotalk 05:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I have several reasons for disambiguating links across all namespaces, primarily that disambig links in article space alone are not the problem. Ambiguous links are also just as incorrect in template, category, portal, and file space, and in many instances in project space. Fixing talk page disambig links is generally necessary to reduce the total number of incoming disambig links below fifty, making it possible for a disambiguator to see all links to all namespaces with a single what-links-here click. Furthermore, correcting those links where the error is obvious makes the link more useful to anyone who might follow it. This is different from fixing a typo, because no one is going to "follow" the typo. Finally, as I have noted above, the target of a given link may be dynamic. A link may point to an article one day, and a disambig page the next. When such a change occurs, incoming links from other spaces are routinely fixed while incoming links from talk spaces are neglected, contributing to the aforementioned link load. As things stand, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation is doing just better than breaking even in fixing the hundreds of thousands of disambig links littering the project, and I am only trying to do my part to ease the job of maintaining perpetual link generators like Chris Brown. bd2412T 12:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Please see User:RussBot/Dablinks from taxobox articles/001 and the following 98 pages. These are all articles that contain both a taxobox and a link to a disambiguation page; the links, however, are not necessarily inside the taxobox. Why? Because it was a hell of a lot easier to do it that way. :-) R'n'B (call me Russ) 00:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
It's a small enough set to conquer without needing any further refinement - thank you for making the list. Less than I feared it would be. Cheers! bd2412T 01:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I have a note saying that I did not give enough information about the photo I up loaded
for the Federal Courthouse in Natchez, Mississippi page. I don't understand. I HAVE given information
on it. I took it. It's not owned by anyone elce. I used it once on my own web page that is now "down" (I do hope to
bring it back). What do I do? What more can I do? What did I do wrong?
I see that you are disambiguating some "Romance" links to "Romance (genre)". However, in many cases, I think that "Romance film" would be more appropriate. If you look at both articles, its pretty clear to me. If you agree, please update the films you have already changed; if not, kindly explain why. BollyJeff||talk 12:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Aren't romance films merely films within the romance genre? bd2412T 12:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Don't think so. The 'film' article talks about 'romantic involvement of the story's protagonists',love, etc; whereas the 'genre' article talks about 'chivalry, legends', etc from the Medieval era. That's quite different. Did you read them? BollyJeff||talk 13:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Many of the articles said that these were films "in the romance genre", so it seemed obvious. bd2412T 13:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that the dictionary sense of "Comfort" is the Primary Usage in encyclopedic terms, but won't argue that point right now. But next time you move a disambiguation page in order to create a new article at the undisambiguated name, please take care to add a hatnote to guide people who need the dab page. I've added this to Comfort. PamD (talk) 08:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I usually do - don't know why I didn't think to do so in this case. However, as for the primary topic, all of the listings on the disambig page are either exceedingly minor, or are phrases that happen to contain the word "comfort" but would not actually be referred to as "comfort" alone, or are things that evoke or promote comfort in the physical/psychological sense. The article may be short at this time, but it is not the "dictionary sense" any more than our article on Love is an article on the dictionary sense of that term. bd2412T 12:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi — can you explain what you intended by this edit, please? It seems to imply that there exists a more general disambiguation page for "width" than the one you edited, width (mathematics). But there isn't: width is an article and there is no width (disambiguation). Are you trying to imply that {{mathdab}} pages shouldn't exist? If so that seems a much broader topic than can be addressed by random tagging of individual pages. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Problem solved then. I have moved the page to Width (disambiguation). It is still a {{mathdab}} page because all of the meanings relate to mathematics (just as John Adams (disambiguation) is still an {{hndis}} page despite being at a "foo (disambiguation)" title, and not, for example, "John Adams (human beings)". There are over 300 {{mathdab}} pages; only about a dozen are incomplete disambiguations. bd2412T 00:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I have improved the page a little. I don't feel it is incomplete, as there were only two Secretaries of State in this period, and both are linked. I could, as suggested, make it into a short article, but that would involve duplicating information which is already on the linked pages. Do you mind if the "incomplete" tag is removed now? Moonraker2 (talk) 03:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Incomplete disambiguation does not mean that the page is lacking information, but that the title suggests that the page is the final destination when it remains ambiguous. Such pages should be redirected to the general disambiguation page for the topic. In this case, there is a substantial article on the concept of the Secretary of State, which has a section on the United Kingdom into which this should be merged. bd2412T 03:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I do not like this approach, as Great Britain preceded the United Kingdom. Perhaps the answer is to create a separate header at Secretary of State. Moonraker2 (talk) 04:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I personally have no objection to that, although I think people will understand if the information is contained under "United Kingdom", just as they would understand if there was information under "United States" if such an office existed here prior to the Revolutionary War. bd2412T 16:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Could you please explain what you mean by an incomplete disambiguation on Degrassi (season 1), Degrassi (season 2), and Degrassi (season 3)? In 2010 the title of Degrassi: The Next Generation was changed to Degrassi, thus subsequent season articles use the new name (Degrassi (season 10)). If a user were to apply this convention to previous seasons, they would be redirected to the correct title, unless it is season 3 or less, because Degrassi could refer to a number of series. 117Avenue (talk) 04:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
This is a tricky one, compared to the typical incomplete disambiguation situation. bd2412T 18:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, there has been muchdiscussion on why parenthesis are used for TV season articles. 117Avenue (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
These, however, are not actual TV season articles. They are disambiguation pages, and must therefore conform to the Manual of Style for disambiguation pages. bd2412T 22:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering, why do thinkTime (song) is WP:INCDAB rather than WP:DDAB? What's the distinction? Would you rather see this list of 50ish items added to Time (disambiguation)? I have no strong opinion on this, it just seems like it would over-clutter the dab page. --Muhandes (talk) 07:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
The difference is the parenthetical, which is itself a disambiguator. The actual name of "Foo County" is "Foo County" while the actual name of "Foo (song)" is still just "Foo", just like everything else on the "Foo (disambiguation)" page. This should indeed either be merged into Time (disambiguation), or changed into an article along the lines of List of songs named Time. bd2412T 16:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I can't say I see the rationale in having 50 more entries in Time (disambiguation), but I can't say I care either. This is quite common though, Matrix (car) comes to mind. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if you could explain what you meant by this? Thanks SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
The tag arises from the fact that this was a page labelled as a disambiguation page, but having a disambiguating parenthetical "(surname and title)" in the title of the article. In this case the solution was easy because surname pages are not disambiguation pages at all. If they were, we'd have to delete all the references because disambig pages don't contain them, as they belong on the article page. This was remediable by using a {{surname}} designation in place of the incorrect {{disambig}} designation. bd2412T 16:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello, why did you restore the history underneath the current stub.[2] I don't see how the are connected. --Tikiwont (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
That is unusual. Most often, where there is an edit history under a previously deleted title it is because the subject was merely not demonstrably notable at the time that the article was deleted, and not because the title relates to a different subject. In the typical scenario concerning a song, album, or band, additional indicia of notability allow the article to be recreated, but editors may remain unaware of a useful record of edit history that has been deleted. This instance was just a fluke. Cheers! bd2412T 22:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
What happened was that User:Kyle1278 did a really sloppy mass run through all the redlinks that were left on List of communities in Ontario back in 2009, without making any effort to sort out whether some of them were incorrectly titled. It took months to clean up the mess he made, and in fact it's still not entirely done. The problem with Sunset Beach is that none of the four are municipalities; all four of them are merely rural hamlets inside municipalities, and none of them can claim primary status over any of the others. Bearcat (talk) 04:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Regarding section 3a, I'm unsure how the two list solution would be implemented. (Also, you may want to pull my comment there - it was just an aside to you.) BTW much better placement of the "have Mathbot conform to MOSDAB" section, thanks for that. --JaGatalk 19:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I should spell that out. One set of lists in article space without the disambig links; and a duplicate set of lists in project space including the disambig links. Carl and David's protestations to the contrary, I think it would be extremely easy to instruct a bot to do this. By the way, once the draft is done, should I copy and paste it into the ongoing discussion, or move it to a subpage? I'm leaning towards the latter. bd2412T 20:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Do you know of other "Springfield Road stations" besides the two within the SEPTAMedia-Sharon Hill Line? If not, then you should've left the dab page alone. ----DanTD (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Please review WP:INCOMPDAB, the policy according to which disambig pages are prohibited from ending in parentheticals. Cheers! bd2412T 23:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Basing it on whether or not they end in parentheses doesn't make any sense. It's a dab page for SEPTA stations, because it's two SEPTA stations with the same name. In addition, I just discovered that Girard (SEPTA station) was inappropriatley renamed Girard station, when the Girard (disambiguation) article would've been more sensible. ----DanTD (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
A parenthetical in the title suggests that the page name is already disambiguated, i.e. that there are in fact multiple entities called "Springfield Road" of which one is a SEPTA station. If you prefer to merge these pages into titles not including "station" that is fine as well, but a title including the term distinguishes them from non-station entities having that name, if any exist. I presume, for example, that there is a "Springfield Road" for which the station itself is named. bd2412T 00:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
If you had read the article, you'd know that there is a Springfield Road for which both stations are named... and they're both SEPTA stations. The name I had suggested just that. No article for the road, though. ----DanTD (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
My point is that there are plenty of Springfield Roads, all over the country. There are very few Springfield Road stations, and those can be listed distinctly. I note that there is a moderately historically significant Springfield Road police station and Springfield Road fire station, respectively, in Belfast, Ireland. bd2412T 00:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I suppose if there were a reason to add a Springfield Road police and fire station to the renamed dab article, I'd be okay with that. For the other SEPTA Regional Rail lines you mentioned, I already moved seven of them to general R1-8 dab pages. The only one I didn't do was R4 (SEPTA), which was a proposed service that was never used, and this was because I wanted to write a direct article about it. Unfortunatley, last year SEPTA got rid of that numbering system for their commuter railroad lines, and I'm not sure it would make any sense today. ----DanTD (talk) 04:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
All that is left to do then is redirect the numbered SEPTA titles to the general R1-8 disambiguation pages. As for R4, if it was never actually used, and never will be, I'm not sure I see the need for a disambig page. Surely the unexecuted plan can be discussed at one or the other of the target articles on the page. bd2412T 04:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
For now, I say the only place the current SEPTA R4 dab pag can go is the general R4 dab page. But while you're at it, I'm wondering if you looked at Kensington tube station which should be merged into Kensington station (disambiguation). ----DanTD (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I hadn't looked at that, as the title does not run afoul of the MOS. However, I agree that it can be merged, especially since none of the target pages even have "tube" in the title. bd2412T 17:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I am putting this on your talk page, because I am not quite sure how much further this effort should go. I added Carl Phillip Weber to the Carl Weber disambiguation page, but I have not created a bio for him. What do you advise? --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
As this is no longer an ambiguous link, I have remove the {{dn}} tag. Thanks for solving this mystery - if you are interested in writing on this individual, a bit more biographical data can be found in this brochure. Cheers! bd2412T 12:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Generally, such a term should not be linked on the disambig page unless there is some mention of the ambiguous term in the target article itself. Furthermore, as to "simcha", one blue link per line is still the rule, so only one term could be linked as an example (and, again, it must be one where the term itself is mentioned in the article). bd2412T 23:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I scanned through the history of Quadell (who no longer appears active) for information about the large number of Merge templates attributed to his bot. I saw that you were working through them. This was in 2009 and I was wondering if you or anyone else was still actively merging the information. They are making up a large percentage of the backlog [3]. AIRcorn(talk) 05:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I have been getting through them, but very slowly as of late, due to other work filling my time. However, now that I know there is a problem, I will make a point of working through these more quickly. Cheers! bd2412T 13:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Not really a problem. I just noticed that April 2010 had twice as many merges as any other month and was curious why. There are still plenty of others to resolve and as long as they are useful it is not a major issue. AIRcorn(talk) 21:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Please clarify. (You didn't note this as a problem but you are a more experienced editor than me.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Waugh_(artist) is an orphan because all of the links go out, and none come in? Is this what is meant by "incoming link"? thanks--Aichikawa (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, an orphan page is a page to which few or no other pages link. Generally, if a topic is important enough to have an article, it is expected that it will be mentioned (and linked) in several other articles. If a page is an orphan, that might indicate that it is not a notable subject, or that mentions in other articles are not linked to it. bd2412T 20:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Disambiguation Pages With Links Monthly Challenge Winner
The Super Disambiguator's Barnstar is awarded to the winners of the Disambiguation Pages With Links monthly challenge, who have gone above and beyond to remove ambiguous links. This award is presented to BD2412, for successfully fixing 5712 links in the challenge of October, 2010. This user is also recognized as the Bonus List Champion of May, 2011.Quinxorin (talk) 08:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Note: as per the discussion on the DAB talk page, this award is now given to 1st place DAB challenge winners, and is being given out retroactively to past ones.
Hello, BD2412. I notice you have changed some links to manor, which is a dab page, pointing them to manor house. In English history, "manor" nearly always means a landed estate, which might or might not have had a manor house. Domesday Book is based on manors and not on parishes. In many cases, a present-day English rural parish is based on a Domesday manor and is much the same in area. The better link is usually manor. If you find "lord of the manor", then we have a page for lord of the manor. Regards, Moonraker (talk) 03:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up, I will generally use Manorialism for the remaining links of this type. Cheers! bd2412T 18:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
