User talk:MB/Archive 15
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:MB. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 |
pic placements and single pile plan in Kentucky
Thanks for editing at new John C. Brown House, NRHP in Kentucky, mostly moving photos into a nice gallery of two photos. I honestly do try! with pic placement; here I believe i was thinking that placement of two photos was good with one pic in the infobox and one left-aligned thumb. And then later I added another pic for some reason, and wasn't particularly thinking about article-level layout. One couldn't have a one-photo gallery, right? Or what would you do, like, under what circumstances would you use a left-thumb placement?
Also, do you happen to know what a "single pile plan" is? It comes up a lot in Kentucky documents, and I have tried some but failed to understand. I sorta interpret as a deprecating term, like an earl in England referring self-deprecatingly to "my brick pile", as if their castle is merely literally a pile of bricks. --Doncram (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- Doncram, the biggest problem with that article was, at least on my screen width, the two photos didn't fit in the section. The second photo caused the following section (References) in this case, not to be aligned to the left. Articles look really bad with sections headers out of alignment.
- Lots of articles have photos to the left of the infobox. They are usually OK, except for the problem above. Lots of NRHP stubs are so short that we run into a header conflict, even with just one photo. An easy way to make a "gallery" of one is just use "thumb|center" and move the photo to after the last main section.
- As far a "single pile", I'm not from Kentucky :) and not familiar with the term, but this says it is a one room deep (horizontal) plan (whereas a shotgun house is one room wide (perpendicular). MB 21:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
PageTriage
Hello @MB I hope you're doing well. I see marked PageTriage on Yashomati Maiyaa Ka Nandlala. I was not informed or was aware of spelling mistake in article, or if the article was moved to Yashomati Maiyaa Ke Nandlala. If you check the history of the article which you marked page triage today was already reviewed, so are you gonna/would be inclined to do the same to reduce burden of patroller, or shall I ask assistance from Atlantic306 who reviewed previously. Sorry if I was rude to you. Thank, stay safe. C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 18:04, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- C1K98V, I am not sure what you mean. I reviewed the redirect that was created when the page was moved on July 27. The article itself was already reviewed. It does not need to be reviewed again because it was moved to a new title. Nothing else needs to be done. MB 18:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- @MB Yes the article was reviewed previously. As it was moved to new title, it has been removed from Google search due to new page indexing after 90 days. So I'm requesting you. Thanks C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 18:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- Novem Linguae, can you comment on this. How do we verify that an article is noindexed? Articles noindexed by {{noindex}}, which is on all kinds of proposed deletions, are in Category:Noindexed articles. But brand-new articles that should be noindexed by the WMF software aren't categorized that way, right? In the above case, moving an article does not mark it unreviewed so I would expect no affect on the index status. Is the OP mistaken? MB 18:58, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) the article in question is indexable by Google, even after being moved. If it is not appearing in the OP's search results, that's either Google's or the OP's issues. It is appearing on my searches with either titles. One way to verify if the page is indexable is to view the HTML source of the page. If the line
<meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow"/>appears in the HTML mark up in the<head></head>section, then it is not indexable. Otherwise, it is. – robertsky (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)- @Robertsky yeah I had faced troubled with the Google searches/ISP. And I was having 1 other instances as well where after I merged the article it got vanished from google. So I ask @MB to consider this. No issues if it's visible in google searches at your end, may be in week/month I will again able to see the same thing at my side. Thanks C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 23:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- @C1K98V there is nothing wrong on Wikipedia side with respect to indexability of the moved page. MB has no need to re-review an already reviewed page. As far as I know, such action does not trigger search engines to search for, update to, and/or index the moved pages. No comments on the other instance. – robertsky (talk) 01:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Robertsky yeah I had faced troubled with the Google searches/ISP. And I was having 1 other instances as well where after I merged the article it got vanished from google. So I ask @MB to consider this. No issues if it's visible in google searches at your end, may be in week/month I will again able to see the same thing at my side. Thanks C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 23:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- {{NOINDEX}} is actually not the most reliable way to check. Pages (in mainspace) with that template become indexed after 90 days I think in order to prevent template vandalism where someone adds NOINDEX to a popular template such as a navbox. The method robertsy described above (checking the HTML source for the presence or absence of the noindex keyword in the head/meta area) is the most accurate way to check. The specific article mentioned looks fine. [1] Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Robertsky Yes, I agree with you nothing wrong with wikipedia end. @Novem Linguae Yes, when logged off or randomly I'm searching with the keyword "wikipedia" for the series. Thanks @MB, for guiding and teaching me something about page patrol. Have a good day, stay safe. C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 03:09, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) the article in question is indexable by Google, even after being moved. If it is not appearing in the OP's search results, that's either Google's or the OP's issues. It is appearing on my searches with either titles. One way to verify if the page is indexable is to view the HTML source of the page. If the line
- Novem Linguae, can you comment on this. How do we verify that an article is noindexed? Articles noindexed by {{noindex}}, which is on all kinds of proposed deletions, are in Category:Noindexed articles. But brand-new articles that should be noindexed by the WMF software aren't categorized that way, right? In the above case, moving an article does not mark it unreviewed so I would expect no affect on the index status. Is the OP mistaken? MB 18:58, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- @MB Yes the article was reviewed previously. As it was moved to new title, it has been removed from Google search due to new page indexing after 90 days. So I'm requesting you. Thanks C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 18:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Note about the redirect template
Hi. The problem with that redirect template for Astronomical objects was that both the singular and plural forms (celestial body/bodies) redirect to that page, and I was trying to indicate that there were links to both of those separate on the DAB page. Perhaps a text hatnote would be better? (I'm not too concerned about it - just wanted to explain my rationale for changing it.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- Laterthanyouthink, I realized your intent. That way caused the article to be in Category:Articles with redirect hatnotes needing review, which I clear out daily. I didn't think listing both the singular/plural form was that useful, so I just undid it. But if you think it is important, you could list each with {{redirect2}} or use custom text to match your original with {{hatnote}}. MB 02:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, I see, thanks. I think it's already a redirect2 (and I've found before that there's no redirect3!), but will have another look if I get to it. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:09, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- Laterthanyouthink, for more than two, there is {{redirect-multi}} which would give:
- A custom hatnote for the redirects could be something like:
- MB 04:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, great - thanks for that! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, I see, thanks. I think it's already a redirect2 (and I've found before that there's no redirect3!), but will have another look if I get to it. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:09, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Question
Can you point me to the procedure to swap an article and a redirect? HeinzMaster (talk) 03:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- HeinzMaster, you need to be an Admin or a WP:PAGEMOVER to do it yourself. Otherwise, you make a request at WP:RM. This would be a "technical move" listing A -> B and B -> A. MB 04:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Picture gallery vs. integrated in text
Hi, MB. Thanks for reviewing West Hill Residential Historic District. I see that you moved the images all to a gallery at the bottom of the page. Previously each was positioned in the text to illustrate the house being described. I would think the latter is more convenient for the reader - particularly if they're reading from a phone with a small screen - but even if they have a big screen. Thoughts? --Jeff the quiet (talk) 16:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- I primarily view on a desktop, and the images were in a vertical column down left side of the page, completely separated from the relevant sections. The advice in MOS:LAYIM is what I usually follow. MB 16:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- The layout with images and text integrated looks good on my desktop in that old layout [2]. If I size the browser screen like a book or magazine page the images stick with the relevant text except right at the end, where they get a little ahead. If I make Wikipedia full-screen on my desktop the images outrun the text, but I doubt many read like that.
- I agree with MOS:LAYIM that "Each image should ideally be located in the section to which it is most relevant," and I think the spirit of that guidance is that each image should ideally be near the text to which it is most relevant. I could reintegrate the images and shrink them, but then that shrinks them on phone screens too, which isn't great. I could reintegrate the images and move a few to the left, which would help the stacking-up issue but may not produce a pleasing layout. Thoughts? --Jeff the quiet (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see that. With my normal windowsize, 6/10 are partially or fully in the ref section. I have to make the window ridiculously narrow to keep the images in the text. For example, the last bullet (504 Superior) fits on two lines, with the narrow window that bullet takes five lines. I like a wide window so I can see more without scrolling (I don't know if this is really uncommon as you suggest). It is hard to make images look good on multiple devices simultaneously. I don't like shrinking them either, and left doesn't work either because they would interfere with the left alignment of the bullets (at least on some screen widths).I would actually cut some images - the timber rafting one isn't particularly relevant, and one Colonial Revival and one Italianate would be sufficient. Then move half of the photos to a separate gallery higher up. That might work. MB 18:25, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- I moved the images back into the text, dropping the timber-rafting image. With that it looks ideal on my phone, with each image right before the text that describes it. On my desktop computer it looks good with the browser window 10 inches wide, placing most images near their text with only the last image down alongside the references. If you're running your browser full-screen and wide, the images will still spill far down beyond the references, but I don't think most users are viewing that way. Phone app users certainly aren't, and they're now more than half of internet readers. Desktop users can read text with their browsers wide, but I don't think most of us do, because a really wide page makes it harder to find where each line continues on the left side of the page as you read. --Jeff the quiet (talk) 03:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see that. With my normal windowsize, 6/10 are partially or fully in the ref section. I have to make the window ridiculously narrow to keep the images in the text. For example, the last bullet (504 Superior) fits on two lines, with the narrow window that bullet takes five lines. I like a wide window so I can see more without scrolling (I don't know if this is really uncommon as you suggest). It is hard to make images look good on multiple devices simultaneously. I don't like shrinking them either, and left doesn't work either because they would interfere with the left alignment of the bullets (at least on some screen widths).I would actually cut some images - the timber rafting one isn't particularly relevant, and one Colonial Revival and one Italianate would be sufficient. Then move half of the photos to a separate gallery higher up. That might work. MB 18:25, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with MOS:LAYIM that "Each image should ideally be located in the section to which it is most relevant," and I think the spirit of that guidance is that each image should ideally be near the text to which it is most relevant. I could reintegrate the images and shrink them, but then that shrinks them on phone screens too, which isn't great. I could reintegrate the images and move a few to the left, which would help the stacking-up issue but may not produce a pleasing layout. Thoughts? --Jeff the quiet (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 26
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tehran, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Teran.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Please delete
See my reply on my talk page for more detail but basically can you just delete Draft:Bluff Creek (California) jengod (talk) 04:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Jengod, I am not an Admin, so I can't. As author, you can tag it for CSD G7. MB 04:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
YGM
Thanks
For fixing Mount Julia - it didnt take much to fix, however the dropped stubs over the last month or so shows no care for the niceties of accuracy, which in part the prod was created for. I suspect another being dropped again soon, with no attention to detail, again. We'll see. JarrahTree 04:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks so much for your kind thoughts. I was pretty sad. I appreciate you. Bruxton (talk) 02:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
BoT election
Please see this, FYI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing the article - as you are familiar with the article could you also comment at my deletion request? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- My review was just procedural. I marked it reviewed because of the AFD; the discussion there will determine its fate. Unless something changes, it looks like the consensus will be to merge it. MB 13:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
New Page Review
Hi MB this is Sams321, i have created article Acting Ka Bhoot did not review till now can you please review my article, that will appreciate me to create new articles 😊. Sams321 (talk) 06:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Sams321, this was reviewed by someone else. I did notice that several of your other articles have been nominated for deletion, so I recommend you review the WP:Notability guidelines or used the Articles for Creation process that will give you feedback on your draft articles. MB 13:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Speda TV article review
- Hello @MB, I have published an article about one of the most important Kurdish channels in Iraq, as it has strong sources talking about this channel and I linked it with the article, as well as it has many internal sources within Wikipedia related to the article:
- and mentions the extent of its importance in Iraqi society in particular In the Kurdistan region of Iraq, and a while ago with a group of other editors, we modified and corrected the errors that were present in the article.
- Therefore, I ask you not to delete this article because it represents a large media organization in the Kurdistan region of Iraq, and I ask you to forgive us for the errors that may be in the article because I am a new member of Wikipedia. Thank you very much
Mr-MohammedAzeez (talk) 03:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Mr-MohammedAzeez, this article was declined three times. The AFC reviewer left comments that the article did not have sufficient sources to show the subject was notable. Starting an article in mainspace that was declined at AFC us usually not successful. MB 14:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thank You. Mr-MohammedAzeez (talk) 16:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm Lithopsian. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed or created, Trance Vibrator, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Hi, I've reviewed the page you moved to the draft space by adding sources and expanding the content. Could you please move it to the main space now? Thank you in advance. Plumbago Capensis (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Angela Featherstone
We are both trying to help this new editor, but moving a reference from the section where it should be to the general reference section is loss of information. It would be better to give the new editor some time, and in the end they will format the reference as a proper footnote. Debresser (talk) 00:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello, MB,
I noticed that you tagged this page for deletion but didn't post a notice about the deletion tagging on the talk page of the page creator. You used Twinkle, which is great, and Twinkle should have done the notification for you automatically. So, please, check your Twinkle Preferences to make sure that you have "Notify page creator" box checked off and that the box is checked off whenever you tag an individual page for deletion. Thank you! Liz Read! Talk! 00:33, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Liz, My Twinkle preferences are the default, which include "Notify page creator" on all CSDs except for C1, R2, R3, R4. I'm not sure why that is, but I have turned on the those four also. MB 00:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- This is not a typo, I would like to contest the speedy deletion. Crashed greek (talk) 04:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
September 2022
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Venezuela at the 2023 Pan American Games. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Sportsfan 1234, Actually it is you that is being disruptive. You keep inserting redlinks that are not allowed. WP:REDHAT and WP:SEEALSO are very clear on this. You need to write the article first before linking to it in a hatnote or see also section. Please revert your removal of my CONSTRUCTIVE changes. MB 00:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
- Sportsfan 1234, did you never hear of DTTR? Just sayin' . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- Whaddya know? A regular templating a regular. We're editing in some crazy times. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 01:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Bush (band)
Hi, MB! Regarding your revert at Bush (band), I was also inclined to think the British band may qualify as the primary topic for that title. I proposed that Bush (British band) be moved to Bush (band) yesterday at WP:RM/TR and it seems there were doubts that it would, in fact, qualify. I would still be open to the possibility of that move, though. The only thing I know with certainty is that the status quo (in which a title with a more general parenthetical disambiguator redirects to a title with a more specific disambiguator) isn't appropriate. Would you be up for putting it to a full RM discussion? Graham (talk) 04:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Graham11, yes. I was unware of that RM/TR. After the retargetting of the redirect, the hatnote at Bush (British band) was wrong. I thought it made more sense to restore the redirect rather than change the hatnote. Why send someone to a long dab when they are probably looking for the British band and if not, then the Canadian band. I would support you proposed move. MB 04:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Similar d pages
Hey can you give me an opinion on these two d pages? Circassian (disambiguation) and Circassians (disambiguation). Should they be combined? or fine as is. Thanks Bruxton (talk) 22:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Bruxton, definitely combine. The original dab already lists Circassians. Just add the new article and then redirect the unnecessary two-item dab over to Circassian. By the way, the new article Circassians (historical ethnonym) is not really a dab, but a WP:BCA, so I just removed the dab tag that was there. MB 22:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the message. I did it. Bruxton (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Bruxton, it shouldn't have gone under "Other uses" since it was a match for the main title. I moved it up. I also added a hatnote at Circassians. MB 23:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the message. I did it. Bruxton (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
review, acceptance and indexing an article
Hey MB, i have been working on an article about Asiya Azeem. I found some data about her husband Azeem Chaudhary. I would really appreciate if you could review the article and index it so it appears on google search, this way more contributors could add to it. Thank you Mrme1234 (talk) 04:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Mrme1234, I took a quick look but I don't think he is WP:NOTABLE based on what is currently present in the article. It should be moved to Draft so you can try to find more sources without worrying about it being deleted. MB 05:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you MB! tho there are alot of publications by him but all of them are in Urdu, he is quite critical of the political scenario and developments in pakistan. From what got to know so far is that he is quite active on pakistani television too. Could video links and urdu articles be used as references? I was hoping that maybe if its published local constributors would jump in and help with the population of his data Mrme1234 (talk) 05:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Mrme1234, sources do have to be in English. But things written by him don't work for establishing notability. There must be in-depth coverage about him in independent sources. MB 05:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- Hey there agian @MB - I managed to populate the article a little further. Could you please review it and give your feeback? would really appreciate your time and effort Mrme1234 (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- @MB why is Azeem Chaudhary showing up on google search? Biggman007 (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- @MB@Mrme1234 why is Azeem Chaudhary not showing up on google? Biggman007 (talk) 21:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Biggman007, because the article has not passed a review yet. MB 21:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- @MB, are there enough citations in it to pass the review? and is it in review atm? Biggman007 (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Biggman007, there are enough numerically, but I don't know if there are enough good one. That will be up to a reviewer to decide. The article in in the queue along with 9,000 others. You just have to wait. In the meantime, see WP:V and WP:NBIO if you aren't sure what is needed. MB 00:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Biggman007 It does not matter how important the subject person is in his country, for an article to exist, the sources must comply with WP:BLP. The long list of sources at Azeem Chaudhary is not enough. The sources either do not treat the subject in sufficient depth, or are not reliable, or are not relevant at all. This article should preferably be moved to draft or or sent to AfD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Kudpung, see this MB 02:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- I had already guessed as much. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- Draftified. Since there's no one left to edit it , i guess this is a rare instance of using G13 as a backdoor deletion, but socks and COI shouldn't create articles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Kudpung, I was going to let it sit at least another day to see if another sock showed up. MB 04:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- Although they are not listed there they are clearly connected with that sock farm, some of whom were AfCers, NPPers or both. I have a sneaky feeling that draft will come back to haunt us. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Kudpung, see this MB 02:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Biggman007 It does not matter how important the subject person is in his country, for an article to exist, the sources must comply with WP:BLP. The long list of sources at Azeem Chaudhary is not enough. The sources either do not treat the subject in sufficient depth, or are not reliable, or are not relevant at all. This article should preferably be moved to draft or or sent to AfD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Biggman007, there are enough numerically, but I don't know if there are enough good one. That will be up to a reviewer to decide. The article in in the queue along with 9,000 others. You just have to wait. In the meantime, see WP:V and WP:NBIO if you aren't sure what is needed. MB 00:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- @MB, are there enough citations in it to pass the review? and is it in review atm? Biggman007 (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Biggman007, because the article has not passed a review yet. MB 21:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- @MB@Mrme1234 why is Azeem Chaudhary not showing up on google? Biggman007 (talk) 21:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- @MB why is Azeem Chaudhary showing up on google search? Biggman007 (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- Hey there agian @MB - I managed to populate the article a little further. Could you please review it and give your feeback? would really appreciate your time and effort Mrme1234 (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Mrme1234, sources do have to be in English. But things written by him don't work for establishing notability. There must be in-depth coverage about him in independent sources. MB 05:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you MB! tho there are alot of publications by him but all of them are in Urdu, he is quite critical of the political scenario and developments in pakistan. From what got to know so far is that he is quite active on pakistani television too. Could video links and urdu articles be used as references? I was hoping that maybe if its published local constributors would jump in and help with the population of his data Mrme1234 (talk) 05:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Red link hatnotes
Hello, MB,
I was leaving a message for Nihiltres' on their talk page and saw messages from you to them about red link hatnotes. It's something you brought up with me in the past. It sounded like there was an existing category that listed pages that had this problem. Can you tell me what that category is? When I get some free time, I'd like to help out there. It's really a problem caused by admins when they delete articles so we should all do what we can to eliminate these eyesores. I can't guarantee to whittle down a list if there are thousands of pages listed but I could help out a bit. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Liz, it's Category:Articles with hatnote templates targeting a nonexistent page. I usually fix 5 or 10 or 20 a day. It has 8,600 right now, so plenty of left. It seems that there are probably 5 to 10 new ones almost every day as a result of deletions and/or new links to articles that haven't been written yet. I'm surprised you are looking for more things to do, I see you around all the time as it is! MB 22:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- That's a helluva lot of pages! To be honest, I am pretty busy all day. But I'd like to help out in some way, since you brought the situation to my attention. XFDCloser is pretty helpful but most folks use Twinkle to delete PRODs and when you select the option to unlink pages, there are always some links that are not removed and now I see that they are most likely hatnotes. So, since I've done my part contributing to the mess, I'd like to do a little clean up when I can. I appreciate you pointing me in the right direction. Liz Read! Talk! 04:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Liz, sometimes, an article will have a link and a hatnote to an article, so Unlink will remove the link and not report any problem. If it is only in a hatnote, Unlink says something like "unable to unlink" which I believe is the message you see. I have a request in for an update to Twinkle to issue a message, in both those cases, like "this article has links in hatnotes that must be removed manually". One thing I'm not clear on, doesn't XFDCloser use Twinkle Unlink - so the same problem happens if using XFDCloser or not? MB 04:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- That's a helluva lot of pages! To be honest, I am pretty busy all day. But I'd like to help out in some way, since you brought the situation to my attention. XFDCloser is pretty helpful but most folks use Twinkle to delete PRODs and when you select the option to unlink pages, there are always some links that are not removed and now I see that they are most likely hatnotes. So, since I've done my part contributing to the mess, I'd like to do a little clean up when I can. I appreciate you pointing me in the right direction. Liz Read! Talk! 04:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you reviewed
Hello, MB. Thank you for creating Billionaires' Row in Vilnius. User:Hughesdarren, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
This article has no sources.
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Hughesdarren}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm Hughesdarren. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed or created, Billionaires' Row in Vilnius, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Hughesdarren (talk) 23:01, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Hughesdarren, I marked this page as reviewed per NPP policy that pages sent to AFD can be removed from the queue. Whether the page is notable/kept will be determined by consensus at the AFD discussion and there is no need for NPP to monitor it any longer. MB 23:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- Ooops, my bad. I had in my head it was PROD, sorry for the confusion and keep up the good work. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 23:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Reversion in Mark Twain
Please point me to Wikipedia usage policy forbidding occupation list to use initial caps. Otherwise your reversion to lowercase was against Wikipedia policy, which says reversions are to be used only for abuses like vandalism. If you don’t like a change, you are advised to simply change it back manually, rather than slapping another editor by reverting their changes. Caroline1981 (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Caroline1981, lists use sentence case (MOS:LISTBULLET). I'm sorry you feel you were "slapped" with a revert. It is simply the fastest and easiest way to undo a change. I'm not aware of any WP:Policy that says reverts should only be done with vandalism. If you are referring to WP:Reverting, that is just an unofficial WP:Essay. MB 17:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary Reverting good faith edits is experienced as hostile and drives away editors. That it’s not legally binding on you doesn’t make reverting good practice. My feeling slapped is the normal reaction reverted editors have , not personal to me. Caroline1981 (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Caroline1981, the link you provided is the same as the one I previously listed. Reverting is the most common way to restore an article to exactly the way it was before. There was no way to "retain at least some elements of a prior edit" as advised by that essay as you had changed the capitalization of a list and I was changing it back. Reverts in such a scenario are not uncommon. MB 22:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Article names
Hello MB, I see you changed the Glycine Watch SA article to Glycine (watch). When I first began contributing to the article, it was "Glycine Watch", which did not seem appropriate as Glycine Watch is neither the company's full name, nor common name, so I changed it to Glycine (watch). Later, I noticed the title for the Omega watch article was "Omega SA," not Omega (watch). Obviously both Glycine and Omega cannot be named "Glycine" and "Omega" because the names have more recognition has an amino acid and Greek letter, respectively. I thought it would be wise to follow the lead of Omega, since it is such a prominent company, and rename the article again, this time as its full company name "Glycine Watch SA", like "Omega SA". The name change was an attempt at cohesiveness across watch brand articles on Wikipedia. My question to you: should "Omega SA" be "Omega (watch)"? Should "Montres Tudor SA" be "Tudor (watch)"? Piaget SA? Breitling SA? Doxa S.A.? Oris SA? — Spongeworthy93 (talk) 05:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Spongeworthy93, see WP:NCCORP. It says we don't normally use legal qualifiers like Inc. or SA. It also says common names are preferred. So if most sources refer to the company as Glycine, then that is what we should use. In this case, it needs a disambiguator. (watch) is OK, (company) would work also. You can apply that to those other articles. Unless they are normally called by their complete formal names, a case can be made for moving them too. You might want to check in the history of Omega and see if there are any prior move discussions. MB 06:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
"Hammer and chisel (tools)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Hammer and chisel (tools) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 22#Hammer and chisel (tools) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Paradoctor (talk) 03:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
DYK for Bass Lake (Watauga County, North Carolina)
On 24 September 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bass Lake (Watauga County, North Carolina), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the slopes near Bass Lake at Flat Top Manor in North Carolina were covered with hundreds of apple trees? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bass Lake (Watauga County, North Carolina). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Bass Lake (Watauga County, North Carolina)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
"Moves do need to be discussed if there is an objection."
Who has expressed an objection, and when? I haven't seen one. Only someone reverting it purely on the grounds that it's "undiscussed" which is not a ground for reversion at all. — Smjg (talk) 22:48, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Smjg, reverting as "undiscussed" is quite obviously an objection. It is time to go to WP:PCM. MB 22:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to disagree. To me, the fact that somebody reverted something purely as "undiscussed" makes it appear that the person doesn't understand how Wikipedia works, in particular such principles as WP:BOLD. If the user thought there was something inherently wrong with the updated version of the page, the updated title, etc. then this would be indicated by an explanation in the edit summary, rather than using its being "undiscussed" as an excuse. — Smjg (talk) 23:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Smjg, in my experience, a revert with and edit summary of "undiscussed" means they did not agree with the change and are saying that a discussion is needed. It is a commonly used edit summary. Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is a best-practice corollary that it appears you don't understand. MB 23:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- Have you any idea why so many people are pretending their motive is simply that it's undiscussed, rather than actually explaining that they disagree with the updated version? Furthermore, BRD is an essay, not a policy. That isn't to say it isn't good advice, but there are times when there are better ways of dealing with people who revert edits. — Smjg (talk) 23:51, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Smjg, in my experience, a revert with and edit summary of "undiscussed" means they did not agree with the change and are saying that a discussion is needed. It is a commonly used edit summary. Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is a best-practice corollary that it appears you don't understand. MB 23:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to disagree. To me, the fact that somebody reverted something purely as "undiscussed" makes it appear that the person doesn't understand how Wikipedia works, in particular such principles as WP:BOLD. If the user thought there was something inherently wrong with the updated version of the page, the updated title, etc. then this would be indicated by an explanation in the edit summary, rather than using its being "undiscussed" as an excuse. — Smjg (talk) 23:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- Further thoughts about this: "undiscussed" doesn't in itself mean "I disagree with this". It may be the case that people frequently use "undiscussed" to mean "I disagree with this", but even so one mustn't assume a given instance of "undiscussed" is an instance of this. It's perfectly possible that the reverter simply has the aforementioned misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. If you try to second-guess the motive behind a user's edits, you're bound to make mistakes.
- Also, part of WP:BRD is that the reverter gives an explanation in the edit summary. WP:BOLD and WP:DRNC both mean that "undiscussed" is not a ground for reversion, thus I argue that it doesn't qualify as such an explanation. — Smjg (talk) 10:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- As such I argue that, if a user disagrees with an edit, the onus is on that user to explain this explicitly, rather than expect the user who made the original edit, or anybody else, to read between the lines. — Smjg (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- I think you should WP:DROPTHESTICK. Yes, leaving a better reason than "undiscussed" is best practice. But Edit Summaries are not required. A revert is a disagreement. Unless it was not made in good faith, best practice is to start a discussion even if the revert did not follow best practice. You have done so and shortly there will be a decision on this article's title. MB 17:10, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- "A revert is a disagreement." No. A disagreement is an abstract thought. A revert is a concrete action. And it's true that a revert is often motivated by a disagreement, but not always. It may be motivated by belief that the revert goes against policy. For this reason, people might revert edits they agree with.
- "But Edit Summaries are not required." True, but even so people shouldn't use them to give inappropriate reasons. To me, inappropriate reasons are a sign of either bad faith or failure to understand how WP works. Furthermore, I refer you to WP:DRNE and WP:REVEXP. — Smjg (talk) 01:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- I think you should WP:DROPTHESTICK. Yes, leaving a better reason than "undiscussed" is best practice. But Edit Summaries are not required. A revert is a disagreement. Unless it was not made in good faith, best practice is to start a discussion even if the revert did not follow best practice. You have done so and shortly there will be a decision on this article's title. MB 17:10, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- As such I argue that, if a user disagrees with an edit, the onus is on that user to explain this explicitly, rather than expect the user who made the original edit, or anybody else, to read between the lines. — Smjg (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Nomination of Match wagon (disambiguation) for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Match wagon (disambiguation) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive
| New Page Patrol | October 2022 backlog drive |  |
| |
| You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. | |
(t · c) buidhe 21:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
- Wow, MB, you have been busy! I had no idea. Petition looks productive, hope it all works. --Doncram (talk) 00:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Raichur University
Hello, I'm confused by your revert on Raichur University
I've no objection to reverting to your last good edit, but did you mean to revert only one, and have it end up with two Location sections?
No problem if that's the case, just wanted to make sure =] Mlkj (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Mlkj, thanks for that. No, I meant to revert that whole addition. I didn't notice I was only reverting an intervening edit. MB 19:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- That makes sense, thank you! (And apologies for making that confusing half-cleanup instead of just reverting it myself) =)
Manachaban Middle school.
I have recently created a page and I see you re-added the redirect. I have talked to many users, and we all thought that it was a fine article (that will be worked on) that does neccisarly require it's own page. Please don't go deleting articles, saying they need more sources. Help get more sources next time or atleast consult me on my talk page? I am the one who wrote the article by the way and for a moment I thought i lost all my work. And if it is to remain how it is, how will we be going about changing the wikiproject canada status from redirect to an article rank.Msaskiw (talk) 12:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Msaskiw, I hope MB doesn't mind me replying here. As former coordinator for over a decade of the Wikipedia schools project, I fully appreciate your enthusiasm but unfortunately your article does not meet our criteria for inclusion. Middle schools are not inherently notable and just providing some sources won't make it so. Not even all high schools are notable. The onus is on article creators to provide articles that comply with our rules. All the help you need for making a school article is at WP:WPSCH, and the help is very extensive. MB was perfectly correct to redirect the article and he is one of our leading experts at NPP. It will stay a redirect until policy changes, and there was recently a big debate that said that the current policy about schools is not about to change any time soon. If you don't want to lose your work, copy it to your computer, but please do not try to recreate the article on Wikipedia again. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:51, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Okay then. Makes sense. Just a quick question, How would it be "notable". I understand and agree with you but, how would one be not notable? It feels like it wouldn't do any harm? Please explain. Msaskiw (talk) 13:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Msaskiw, please read the project page I linked you to. The information in it is extremely comprehensive. If it's still not clear, then you'll need to follow the links in WP:NSCHOOL. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Msaskiw, the only other thing I would add is that the article was redirected two other times in the past few days by other experienced editors. It's good that you started this conversation. It would have been even better if you has asked the first editor who restored the redirect (that has existed since 2010) for clarification. The first editor even merged the content for you into Rocky View Schools so nothing was "lost", it was just relocated to a more appropriate article. MB 14:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Msaskiw: Please don't take this too personally; I truly think your content is nice and should be preserved. I gave you the PAUSD article as an example because I think it represents current practice on Wikipedia. The best thing to do, if it's objectionable to have only Manachaban in the main district article (I understand that), is to simply put a section for each other middle school. They can even be empty for now. Ovinus (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Yep. I dont understand "dont take this to personally" Im not mad or anything. I very much appreciate the help :) Msaskiw (talk) 19:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Msaskiw: Well, I appreciate that... I just would have been mad in your shoes when I was new here, and I'd rather anticipate that than make you feel unheard!
Ovinus (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Msaskiw: Well, I appreciate that... I just would have been mad in your shoes when I was new here, and I'd rather anticipate that than make you feel unheard!
- Yep. I dont understand "dont take this to personally" Im not mad or anything. I very much appreciate the help :) Msaskiw (talk) 19:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Msaskiw: Please don't take this too personally; I truly think your content is nice and should be preserved. I gave you the PAUSD article as an example because I think it represents current practice on Wikipedia. The best thing to do, if it's objectionable to have only Manachaban in the main district article (I understand that), is to simply put a section for each other middle school. They can even be empty for now. Ovinus (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Msaskiw, the only other thing I would add is that the article was redirected two other times in the past few days by other experienced editors. It's good that you started this conversation. It would have been even better if you has asked the first editor who restored the redirect (that has existed since 2010) for clarification. The first editor even merged the content for you into Rocky View Schools so nothing was "lost", it was just relocated to a more appropriate article. MB 14:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Msaskiw, please read the project page I linked you to. The information in it is extremely comprehensive. If it's still not clear, then you'll need to follow the links in WP:NSCHOOL. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Okay then. Makes sense. Just a quick question, How would it be "notable". I understand and agree with you but, how would one be not notable? It feels like it wouldn't do any harm? Please explain. Msaskiw (talk) 13:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
@Msaskiw and Ovinus: one of the problems is that the Wikimedia Foundation (that's not us, it's the technology organisation that owns Wikipedia) doesn't do enough to write software that infors new users as soon as thetyregister, what the basic requirements are for creating articles. The user has to rely on pot luck finding out themselves - the help is out there, masses of it but there are so many help places and pages you don't know where to start. We feel for you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
mail test
My webmaster is looking in to the problem why I am not receiving some mails sent through the Wiki mail system. Could you please send me a test mail using it so we can check my server. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
State abbreviations
Hi MB. You recently corrected PA and other such usages to omit the two-letter abbreviation, rending it Pennsylvania in the chapter list table in the article, Phi Psi (professional).
I understand this meets general guidance in the WP:MOS. However, for clarity and consistency, I'd like to allow for these. Project participants (Fraternity and Sorority Project) have been rather methodical in recent years, moving chapter lists and infoboxes to adopt consistent formats, this being one of them across several thousand pages. (That's an example of consensus.) We've found that the two-letter abbreviations, with underlying WLs, get the job done, importantly allow for a narrower table, and are thus more readable. In the infoboxes, usage is split: where used in the address fields (not founding school/city), they follow the standard US Postal abbreviations which casual researchers are looking for when addressing an envelope. Founding cities and states are spelled out. It's highly unlikely that non-US readers would seek a postal address here, and run into confusion. Now, in body text we would assuredly spell out the full name of the state. Yours was a good faith, but single change, impacting a category of articles that use this format widely. Wikipedia allows for deviation from the MOS where it improves clarity. I hope you see this as reasonable. Assuming so, I reverted your change. Jax MN (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Military significance for Infobox
Hello MB, I'm curious about this edit. I didn't know there was a certain level of significance (or criteria) necessary for including whether or not you someone served in the military in the infobox. Can you point me to any documentation on that? I've always thought you are or are not a military person, and there isn't necessarily a gray area like this. Similar to whether or not someone is in a category for the topic. Thank you, --Engineerchange (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Engineerchange, yes WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE explains the infobox is for a summary of "key facts". If someone's military service was noteworthy and made up a significant part of the article, it would belong in the infobox. But if it was relatively minor, it wouldn't. This has been discussed before, but it would take some searching to find it. MB 04:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- @MB:, that makes sense. Thanks for the info! --Engineerchange (talk) 07:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
UnReview
Hello MB, You left a message on my talk page saying you unreviewed 2022 The Centaurus Mall Fire Incident, if this because it is being considered for a merge or some other reason? Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 08:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Hughesdarren, yes this seems to be a routine minor WP:NOTNEWS event that does not warrant a separate article. It would be a candidate for deletion on those grounds if there wasn't an article on the building which makes a suitable merge. MB 14:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Help please...
Added an info box to Wolfgang Hoffmann BUT it doesn't quite fit the bill. Is there such a thing as a LIST of Infobox templates from which to choose an appropriate format? Infobox seems to go nowhere in this case!
Am also on the track of further information; have temporarily entered some of it into the Infobox, but awaiting cite-able references to confirm and expand. Thank you! All the Best! Shir-El too 10:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Category:People and person infobox templates is a good place to look. It looks like the article currently has {{infobox architect}}, which is probably a good choice. {{Infobox person}} is also almost always appropriate for a person. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- @User talk:Jonesey95 Thank you! Will follow up the category reference and save the link for future reference. Cheers!!! Shir-El too 09:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Shir-El too, Yes,
{{infobox architect}}seems to be the best fit for this person. I moved some of the info around and added a bit. Would need to know more about the additional information you may add. If a person was also significant in a second career, it is possible to use a second infobox tailored to that and usually there is a way to combine them. MB 15:24, 9 October 2022 (UTC)- Thank you very much! Will revert if/when. Sub rosa he apparently remarried and they opened a photography shop in Geneva. I hope they were successful; I always felt he got a raw deal and deserved better. All the Best!!! Shir-El too 09:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Shir-El too, Yes,
Above confirmed! Have added two new sections. However, Infobox will not accept second wife or shows child only (per final line). Also unable to name reference [9] so as to reuse for same final line. Beyond my ken. Cheers! Shir-El too 20:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Shir-El too, I don't know what trouble you were having adding to the infobox. I added the second wife and child myself. I also made the last ref named and added it to the earlier quote. As best I can tell, this is what you meant. MB 21:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Much Appreciated, MB! I'm not a 'techi' and work mostly with copy-paste, so the niceties of syntax - especially the new (to me) purple commands - elude me. These last edits round it out. I'll continue to trawl, but thanks to you it's 'done'. Many, Many Thanks! Cheers! Shir-El too 08:03, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Page flagged as advert
I do not have a lot of experience editing Wikipedia pages but was wondering what portions of the last update I did to Calabogie Motorsports Park constitute an advert and what changes you'd suggest to still provide the information people would be looking for? It is a Motorsports facility and people come to Wikipedia to find out about the track and what is offered there and so listing what facilities and services are available seems very appropriate.
Thank you. TheColKlink (talk) 21:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
- TheColKlink, If it is not obvious how this article is like an advertisement, I need to ask if you have a WP:Conflict of Interest? The purpose of Wikipedia is not to "provide the information people would be looking for", it is to provide encyclopedic summaries of notable topics. See WP:NOT and specifically WP:NOTGUIDE. MB 22:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Triton Jr-Sr High School
Hey, I'm a frequent editor of the Triton Jr-Sr High School wikipedia page, I've recently had trouble fixing image syntax and I've seen you've corrected my mistake, If you could show me how to fix that I'd appreciate it.
Thanks, Sy LegitZenith (talk) 05:40, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- You should be able to look at my edit to see what I did. Basically, in infoboxes the filename is used as the parameter, e.g.
image=filename.ext, notimage=[[File:filename.ext|thumb]]MB 14:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)- Thanks! LegitZenith (talk) 14:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
YGM
You have several. They'll keep until you can read them. Take care, Chris. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)