User talk:Mlaffs/Archives/2008/December

""

On fixing links that aren't broken
Hi, I notice that you've been "repairing" links to Kalamazoo by replacing it with a link to Kalamazoo, Michigan with an edit summary of "Repairing link to disambiguation page". First, Kalamazoo is not a disambiguation page -- it redirects to Kalamazoo, Michigan, so the links are not actually in need of being repaired. Editing a whole lot of pages to make a single edit (which is not really even necessary), is not particularly effective. See Redirect. Cheers. older ≠ wiser 11:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Got it - thanks for the constructive feedback. The backs of my ears are clearly still drying! Question - worth going back to undo those edits? Mlaffs (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No, not at all. There's nothing really "wrong" with either link. In the course of making other edits to a page, there'd no problem at all with updating the links -- it's just that there's not much point to make single edits to a lot of pages to fix links that aren't really broken. Cheers. older ≠ wiser 02:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixing dab links
Just curious, are you using an automated process to fix these thinks? - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope - manual, using "What links here". Mlaffs (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Good work! - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

League of Copyeditors roll call
Melon ‑ Bot  ( STOP! )  18:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Help with list
I've been working on filling in the numerous gaps on the page List of companies listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange. I'm close to having it completely current as of the end of December. As a result, however, the page has grown quite large - 65KB as of now - which is probably not a good thing.

There's a similar list for the New York Stock Exchange, however it seems to have been set up using a slightly different template than the one used when this page was created. It's divided up into separate pages for each letter of the alphabet, rather than all being on a single page, and those pages are linked together in a box at the top.

I'm not too proud to admit that that's a level of page creation much higher than I think I'm currently capable of, although I've poked around a bit to see if I can figure it out. I'm wondering if there's an easy way to make this change, or if there's a project or particular group of users who have expertise at this type of set-up?

Thanks in advance for any help you can provide.
 * Anyone can make the change, but it's somewhat complicated. You first need to create a template and a category page; you can do this by following the pattern of Template:NYSE listed stocks and Category:Lists of companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Then you can create the pages linked from the template (it will contain red links after you change the names round, that you can then click on), by copying the relevant piece of information from the existing page and placing the template at the top (you add a template to a page by writing its name in braces, so NYSE listed stocks will add that template to the page) and the category at the bottom (by placing a link to it). (For copyright reasons, mention which page the information originally comes from when you create the per-letter pages.) Finally, you redirect the article to the category. So it isn't at all easy, although it is possible.
 * If you need help doing the change, it's best to ask someone who's done it before; I don't know of anyone, or any particular project, which regularly does this, though. You might want to try the assistance village pump but not all requests there are answered.
 * Hope that helps! --ais523 16:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much - it actually helps quite a bit. Actually, having it explained step by step like that, it doesn't seem nearly as complicated as I thought it would be.


 * I took a look at the NYSE template history, and it looks like the user who created it is still active. So, I think I'll take a crack at this myself, and get in touch with him/her if I run into problems.


 * Thanks again! Mlaffs (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the redirects-showing-in-categories problem; you can prevent a redirect showing in the category it redirects to by adding an extra  just after the  . --ais523 12:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks again - I'll have to write that one down! Mlaffs (talk) 12:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Nifty!
Thanks for your edits at new school hip hop! Links to dab pages are a bugbear of mine that I correct when I notice them in articles. It was sheer inattention that led to my linking to them here. Your edits are much appreciated! 86.44.6.14 (talk) 13:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Link to disambig repair
Hi, your bot did this:, and that's rendered as Doubleday (publisher) , probably because of the. Not sure if you can do anything about it, but knowing is the first step anyway. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 14:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the info. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 18:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Metro Richelieu
Just letting you know that it's already better. Keep working on it. Alex Perrier (talk) 00:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

TELUS Corporation
I just noticed your comment at User talk:Indefatigable. Did you see Manual of Style (trademarks)? If not take a look at Manual of Style (trademarks) which would indicate that Telus Corporation is the correct format to use on Wikipedia. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 03:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The only reason I knew about that particular section was because of the fact that you can have eBay and iPod but you can't have blink-182 or KISS even if the bands spell it that way. Strange. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 04:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

THANK YOU!
— Noetic  Sage  13:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Rose and Malone infobox
Say, thanks for noticing the need for an infobox. Feel free to add one.Daisyabigael (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

New Project
Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * My reply here. Mlaffs (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Madacy Entertainment
The article asserted absolutely no notability, meeting the speedy deletion critieria. Maintaining a stock listing does not appear to be a factor at Notability (organizations and companies). Cheers and happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Lock-Up (TV series)
Woo, I love your tag, have you thought about adding the infobox yourself? That would be super. Have a nice day -- Luigibob (talk) 02:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiCleaner bug and The Bronx
Please see: User talk:NicoV/Wikipedia_Cleaner/Documentation which explains it. There was a weird bug about a link that redirected to a Category, White Plains Road. Well, I also changed White Plains Road so it is now a a stub article instead. But the main thing is to watch out for WikiCleaner changing wikilinks so they start with "Category:", which causes text to disappear from the page.

Also there is still this suggestion: Redirect, which I did not even know about until today. Thanks! -Colfer2 (talk) 05:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My reply here. Mlaffs (talk) 14:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, the second-to-last paragraph thing here you mentioned makes sense. I guess if people are setting up redirects for future article, they should use stubs instead anyway.  And maybe not redirect to Categories! -Colfer2 (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Sean Hannity
Got it. Incidentally, if the protecting admin is ever unavailable, you can also use editprotected to request non-controversial edits to protected pages - then any administrator will perform the change for you. (ESkog)(Talk) 00:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Wise
Thanks for catching my forgotten duplicate entry of WISE-TV. I thought I had gotten it, but I forgot :) That's what I get for working on 3 things at once.  Take Care and Have a Great Sunday...  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  16:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My reply here. Mlaffs (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Not a problem. :) Actually, it was one of the disambig pages on my watchlist from the radio station pages I watch.  I didn't know there were two, WISE and Wise....good catch :)  Take Care....  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  17:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Radio station callsign disambiguation
Please cease using dab pages as the source for a future article's name for disambiguation purposes. Just because a dab page uses the form XXXX-FM for a redlinked article does NOT mean the correct name of the article is XXXX-FM. Thank you. JPG-GR (talk) 01:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Or, more accurately, please do not create dab pages that do not use the proper callsigns of the radio station. JPG-GR (talk) 01:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My reply here. Mlaffs (talk) 01:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello
If you wouldn't mind (no rush) could you take a look at West Virginia Radio Corporation? I normally handle raido station pages, but this page for a radio company was just horrible and needed a serious rewrite. Since it is a company, I don't know if it falls under different rules. I appericate the help :) Take Care....  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  05:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

AC Templates
Thanks for the catch. Just got very busy at work, but I promise I will fix all the links and finish up the rest of the templates. --SpeakingOfTheDevil (talk) 01:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

WHCL
My original post here. Mlaffs (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Right you are. Done. Bearcat (talk) 22:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

WXBC
I seen this pop up on my watchlist. Slight problem...when there are two like call signs (like WXBC AM/FM), you should name the page as WXBC (AM) and WXBC-FM. If there is another page (like the "Worldwide X-Ray Beamer Convension"...or something) you should add it as a hat link to WXBC and not create a WXBC (FM).

If there is no AM station, just create it as WXBC. Hope I haven't completely confused you. Good work though. Take Care.... NeutralHomer •  Talk  14:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I didn't create the disambiguation page — it was already there. I was just cleaning up articles that linked to it using the style that had already been set up. WXBC is the correct call sign for the FM station, and the AM station is a student-run, non-licensed station using the same calls, which is why someone probably named them WXBC (FM) and WXBC (AM), respectively. Anyway, all the incoming links go to the right place now, and I suspect that Dravecky will come along and do a hatnote/page move before too long, as he's kicking ass and taking names with that project these days. Mlaffs (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ooooh, in that case (with the AM being non-licensed) everything is cool :) Dravecky is doing a helluva job.  He has been popping up all over my watchlist.  Take Care....  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  16:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Steve Harvey
I saw that you reverted my edit to the list of stations carrying the show. The reason I broke the WNLA link into two redlinks was because WNLA is a disambiguation page and the article should show the two separate radio stations on which the show airs — WNLA and WNLA-FM. There aren't currently articles for WNLA (AM) and WNLA-FM, but all radio stations are considered notable and WP:WPRS is a very active project, so they will get created sooner or later. Mind if I reinsert? Mlaffs (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If the article for the station doesn't exist I would recommend just removing the wikilinks. They can always be added later if an article is created. -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 00:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't know how I overlooked this one. The articles have been created and the wikilink has been resolved.  (And in any case, it turns out only the FM carries Steve Harvey.) - Dravecky (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks. One less incoming link staring at me on my watch list that I can't resolve! Mlaffs (talk) 02:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Frequencies to Radio Disambig Pages
I noticed you have added the frequencies to the WCLG disambig page, among others. I applaud this readding, as I think it needed to be done. The way I used to create the AM/FM disambig pages was like this:

WCLG could refer to two radio stations in United States:


 * WCLG (AM), a radio station broadcasting at 1300 kHz on the AM band, licensed to Morgantown, West Virginia.
 * WCLG-FM, a radio station broadcasting at 100.1 MHz on the FM band, licensed to Morgantown, West Virginia.

If you like, you are welcome to use this way to redo any disambig pages that need frequencies added. Take Care... NeutralHomer •  Talk  18:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Pardon the intrusion, but per WP:Disambig standards (especially the one-link-per-link and no-bold guidelines), the page would need to look a heck of a lot more like this...

WCLG could refer to:


 * WCLG (AM), a radio station (1300 AM) licensed to Morgantown, West Virginia, United States
 * WCLG-FM, a radio station (100.1 FM) licensed to Morgantown, West Virginia, United States


 * And please add a WikiProject Disambiguation tag to the talk page. Thanks! - Dravecky (talk) 04:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, the latter is a little closer to what I've been doing than the former. Most of the dab pages exist already, of course, so I've just been adding the frequencies within whatever format each page already had — I figured that trying to change them all over to look exactly alike was a little more busywork than was advisable. For any of the ones that I've been creating myself, the wording has been more like "XXXX-XX, a radio station at 000.0 FM licensed to Nowheresville, Nostate". I hadn't been tagging the talk page - figured that the disambig template at the bottom would take care of that, but I can see why that wouldn't make sense. I'll go back and add that to the ones I've already created.
 * Dravecky, are you interested in a heads-up when I come across dab pages that are along the lines of the ones you've changing to hatnotes, or have you already identified them all and you're just working through them? Mlaffs (talk) 04:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been doing them state by state, alphabetically, and only have Pennsylvania through Texas to do. (I got sidetracked by a day or so working on Cayman Islands Radio and the dozen or so radio station articles that needed to be created.)  If you see one in any state besides PA through TX, do please let me know.  Thanks! - Dravecky (talk) 04:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I do apologize for the confusion. I was unaware that there was a no-bold guideline for radio disambig pages.  My goof :S  Take Care...  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  09:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of WDXE
I have nominated WDXE, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/WDXE. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Your WDXE post on WP:WPRS's Talk Page
Not a problem :) I keep templates of pages saved and just add the information from the FCC database, 100000watts.com, and Radio-Locator.com.....plus logos from the station's website (with proper F-URs, of course).  Takes about 10 minutes, 15 if the servers are slow :)  If you ever need help again, please don't hesitate to ask :)  Take Care...  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  22:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed splitting of KAMU
Could you please give your reasons for WP:SPLITTING the KAMU article? Thanks. EagleAg04 (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I should have noted something on the article's talk page. Of course, if I had, I would have seen that you'd only recently had a discussion about merging the two articles on which nobody bothered to comment :>)! My rationale is that an article on each of the two stations would be notable on their own. Although they may only be stubs at this point, there are two separate wikiprojects — WP:TVS and WP:WPRS — that are focused on maintaining and improving articles like these. Mlaffs (talk) 02:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you mind holding off until one of the sections is long enough to justify its own article? There should be no problem with the same article being covered by multiple Wikiprojects, as this happens on many of the articles in Wikipedia. I also prefer the current article structure over a redirect page, since KAMU is the actually name of the organization that operates both stations. EagleAg04 (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Since there's been another opinion added, I'm going to copy this conversation over to the article's talk page. Mlaffs (talk) 03:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

1650 AM and 1700 AM
Agreed. I was unaware that they were disambig pages. I thought they were lists. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

WBZ
I noticed you moved the article at WBZ (AM) to WBZ, with a note that a two-item disambiguation page isn't necessary. Ordinarily, I'd agree with you, particularly if one of the usages was an abbreviation or something that was less frequently used — in fact, Dravecky has been moving many of these cases to hatnotes as you've done here recently, when the disambiguation has been between a radio station and an airport using the same ICAO code, for example. However, for a situation where two radio or TV stations share the same base call sign, I think the disambiguation is not only necessary, it's almost essential.

I've just spent the last couple of months cleaning up incoming links to dab pages like these ones, to the tune of 6-7000 edits. In fact, WBZ would have been one of the pages that I cleaned. I can guarantee you that the radio station article will now gather other articles linking to it that should properly link to the TV station, and they won't be easy to spot and fix like they would be if they linked to a dab page. The offsetting cost is one extra click for someone who wants the radio station article and the same number of clicks for someone who wants the TV station article.

And I know, WP:Other stuff exists, but there are probably several hundred dab pages that are exactly like this one — disambiguating a radio and a TV station, or two radio stations. This would be one of the few outliers that's using a hatnote instead, and the other few using that format were on a list for me to tackle once I'm done cleaning up incoming links, and turn them into dab pages so that there's a consistent approach across the project.

Didn't want to revert without a discussion. Thoughts? Mlaffs (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello! Needless to say, you raise a very valid issue that I hadn't considered.  With this in mind, I believe that the best course of action is to replace such a disambiguation page with a redirect to one of the two articles listed (instead of moving an article to the undisambiguated title, as I did).  That way, the incoming links could continue to be monitored, but readers wouldn't be inconvenienced by an unnecessary navigational step.
 * This isn't a perfect solution, but having "Foo" redirect to "Foo (bar)" seems preferable to having "Foo" serve as a two-article disambiguation page. Thoughts?  —David Levy 22:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think what you're suggesting is that we have "WBZ" redirect to "WBZ (AM)", which would be the radio station article, and then leave a hatnote in place on "WBZ (AM)" that links to "WBZ-TV". I think I see where you're coming from, in that any links to simply "WBZ" in an article are isolated and easy to fix for someone who's watching that page (such as myself). The problem is that we'd be making an assumption that someone using the search bar for WBZ will primarily be looking for the radio station, and I'm not sure that's a correct assumption. There are more articles that link in to the radio station article than the TV station article, but not appreciably more.
 * There's a whole set of standards outlined at WP:DAB but, generally, disambiguation pages should only be named "Foo (disambiguation)" if "Foo" is so much more prevalent than anything else that it would serve as the "primary topic". In that case, then "Foo" is the main page, and it would have a hatnote at the top linking to "Foo (disambiguation)". "Foo (disambiguation)" would then list all of the other Foos, such as "Foo (shoo)", "Foo (kof)", "Foo (bar)", etc. A good example of that is K2, which is the article about the mountain and has a hatnote linking to K2 (disambiguation), which has all of the other "K2" articles.
 * However, if there is no "primary topic", then the disambiguation page should be at "Foo", and it would simply list all the other Foos. An example of that is at ABC, which is just a straight disambiguation page with links to a raft of other articles, because there isn't one single "ABC" that would overwhelmingly be the one people are looking for.
 * For the radio and TV station articles, it generally works like this. Say you have an AM radio station with the call sign "ABCD", an FM radio station with the call sign "ABCD-FM", and a TV station with the call sign "ABCD-TV" (this is the most straightforward example). The disambiguation page would be at "ABCD" (the part they all share in common), and then the station pages would be named "ABCD (AM)", "ABCD-FM", and "ABCD-TV". Alternatively, if you just had an FM radio station with the call sign "ABCD-FM" and a TV station with the call sign "ABCD", then the disambiguation page would still be at "ABCD", while the station pages would be "ABCD-FM" and "ABCD (TV)".
 * Have a look at WTMJ for an example where the AM radio station has the base and WUFT for an example where it's actually the TV station that has the base. Again, pretty much all of the disambiguations for radio and TV station articles use this same format - see KAAN, KABQ, etc. Mlaffs (talk) 22:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm referring strictly to instances in which there are exactly two stations with a particular call sign (and no other meanings with articles). Assuming that the radio station and the television station are equally likely targets for someone seeking "WBZ," it still makes more sense to send readers to one (with a hatnote leading to the other) than it does to have a two-article disambiguation page.  The former setup enables 50% of the readers arriving at WBZ to immediately reach their intended article, while the other 50% must follow a link.  The latter setup ensures that 100% of these readers must follow a link.
 * Quoth WP:DAB: "If there are two topics for a term but neither is considered the primary topic, then a disambiguation page may be used; an alternative is to set up a redirect from the term to one of the topics, and use disambiguation links only." I don't care for the first part of that advice, but the second part is what I advocate.
 * In the examples that you cited, KAAN would become a redirect to KAAN (AM). KABQ, however, would remain a disambiguation page (because "KABQ" has a third linked meaning), as would any call sign commonly referring to three broadcast stations (AM, FM and TV).  —David Levy 23:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "Quoth" — I love that! You just don't see that used often enough these days. :>)
 * Don't get me wrong — I'm not suggesting that the redirect/hatnote approach you're suggesting is wrong. WP:DAB definitely sets that out as an option. I guess I'm just suggesting that the dab page approach (the first part of that advice) is far, far more common. I've literally just finished going through the last of the situations where there are two or more stations sharing the same base call sign as part of the clean-up project I've been doing. I'd honestly say that no more than 5% of the situations where there are only two stations are using the second option and, like I said, my intention was to go back once I was done and convert those ones to the dab page approach unless I could see a really compelling reasons not to (like there'd been a recent revert war about this very issue on a pair of articles). I guess I'm just a sucker for consistency!
 * So, at the end of the day, I think we're both agreeing that disambiguation is necessary, and we're just not agreeing on the approach. That's cool - reasonable people can disagree, and I haven't seen anything to suggest either of us isn't reasonable. Given that, what would you think about throwing this up at the talk page of WP:WPRS and seeing what the consensus there is? I'm suggesting that particular talk page because they seem to be a pretty active project to me in my interaction with them thus far, and they're probably the most likely to care about how this gets settled. Alternatively, if you want a wider audience, we could post it at the talk page of WP:DAB instead. If you're cool with that, we could just post a link to this discussion here and ask them to weigh in. Mlaffs (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I'm all for consistency, and I certainly don't advocate a massive undertaking without first establishing consensus. So yeah, let's solicit additional feedback (and I see no reason not to drop a note at both of those talk page).  You may do the honors, if you're so inclined.  :-)  —David Levy 00:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Done! Mlaffs (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! —David Levy 00:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm firmly on the side of the long-standing WikiProject Radio Stations policy of creating a disambiguation page when two or more broadcast stations share a base callsign. It presents a consistent user experience and prevents confusion when you're looking for one broadcast station and find yourself on the article of another. I've spent the best part of the lat two weeks getting rid of unwarranted disambiguation pages involving radio stations—but only for articles that do not share a primary identification. Two stations with the same base callsign do share such a primary identification, unlike an airport for whom the ICAO code is merely a secondary ident or an organization not best known by its acronym so the acronym is a secondary ident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dravecky (talk • contribs) 03:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I respect your opinion, but it should be noted that WikiProjects cannot create policy. —David Levy 05:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a benefit to a two-item dab in cases where there is no primary topic. There is not need for (nor any harm from) a two-item dab in cases where there is a primary topic. If there is a primary topic for WBZ, it should be at the base name or the target of the base name redirect. If there is no primary topic, the disambiguation page should be at the base name. This is how the WP:D and WP:MOSDAB guidelines indicate. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You may be right, but this isn't what WP:D says at the moment (it explicitly allows both options when there are only two terms). Shall we make a proposal at WP:D to change this advice? In any case I think this approach (the dab page) should be adopted in the present case, since it is perfectly consistent with general policy as well as being favoured by the WikiProject's own conventions.--Kotniski (talk) 12:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that if there is no primary topic for a term, the disambiguation page should be at the base name, regardless of how many entries are on the page. For reference, here is the discussion whereby this change was made to WP:Disambiguation.


 * Not sure what your point is about the discussion - that there wasn't consensus for the change I made? I won't necessarily dispute that, though people didn't object at the time. Anyway, for the general prniciple, let's go back and discuss it at WP:D. For the specific case, clearly there's nothing against policy in having a two-entry dab, so since that's customary for these radio articles, let it be that way.--Kotniski (talk) 13:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, only that people who aren't disambiguation regulars might not realize how that particular phrasing got into WP:DAB and that it is a relatively recent addition.

So, while the discussion did get spread across the three separate talk pages as I feared, it looks like a consensus has developed that a two-line dab page where there's no primary article is the best course. Even if that change doesn't end up reflected in the guidelines at WP:DAB and both options remain appropriate, it certainly seems that there's consensus to allow the radio/TV station dab pages to follow a consistent format. David, are you comfortable with me restoring WBZ to its set-up prior to the move at this point, or would you rather see the change to WP:DAB applied first? Mlaffs (talk) 03:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello again! I believe that the general subject of two-article disambiguation pages warrants additional discussion (in which I intend to participate when I'm not frustratingly busy with non-wiki matters), but I see no reason to wait for that before restoring the previous WBZ setup (so I've gone ahead and done so myself).
 * I sincerely thank and commend you for your impeccable politeness and patience in addressing this situation. —David Levy 10:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Right back at you — it's reassuring to see that it's possible to have an intelligent, rational debate with someone here given how much school-age drahma, arguing, and name calling I run into on a daily basis reading the deletion and complaints pages. Happy wiki-ing! Mlaffs (talk) 12:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

KBFP
That's better having KBFP like that. I figured the stations needed to be seperate page, or 105.3 and 800 AM because 105.3 is liscensed to Delano and 800 AM is liscensed to Bakersfield and having 105.3/800 together made it look like 105.3 was liscensed to Bakersfield, when it was licensed to Delano. Now, KUZZ, you can see I updated it, since both 550 AM and 107.9 FM are both licensed to Bakersfield. Fixed up KUZZ by putting info for 550AM on there also. Thanks though for disambigtioning the KBFP page, then that way it shows that the stations are the same stations.--JoeCool950 (talk) 03:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

FM Template
What this template does is check to see if XXXX-FM exists first, then XXXX (FM), and then if all else fails, go to XXXX. In some cases this may go to a dab page, for which I then took the link out. This was just an easier way to make that FM page not be a bunch of red links, which defeats the purpose of the page and the likelihood it will be deleted.

Anyway, I'm not done with those pages yet. I'm doing the same for all of the AM pages. With a daytime job, I'm only doing this between when I work and when my wife tells me to get off the computer.

--JackBQuick (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe what I can do is to is if the red link appears, make it the XXXX-FM red link instead of the XXXX red link. I will change it, but I need to experiment first. Thanks. --JackBQuick (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a pretty cool idea, and I know absolutely nothing about coding this sort of stuff, but I'm not sure if it's actually possible to pull off an if/then test like that — there are too many variables. Even if XXXX-FM doesn't exist yet, that could well be the correct article name once it's created. If XXXX-FM doesn't exist and XXXX (FM) doesn't exist, but XXXX does, XXXX (FM) might still be the correct article name once it's created if XXXX is a dab page. To make it even more complicated, sometimes the correct article name should be XXXX-LP. It'll all depend on what the actual call sign of the station is.


 * The bigger problem at the moment, though, is that I don't think the coding is actually working the way you describe above. I'm looking at 96.5 as an example, and it appears that it's creating the link in every case as XXXX-FM. In some cases, this results in a blue link because that's the article name. In other cases, this results in a blue link because there's a redirect set up from XXXX-FM to the actual article at either XXXX (FM) or XXXX. And in other cases, it just results in a redlink either because the article that should be at XXXX-FM doesn't exist yet or because there is an actual article at XXXX (FM) or XXXX but no redirect.


 * Either way, having a few redlinks, or even being half-full of redlinks, shouldn't be a problem. Even in that event, the individual frequency pages are still performing a disambiguation role. WP:WPRS is a pretty active project, so all of the redlinks are eventually going to get filled in.


 * Anyway, as part of the work I've been doing cleaning up links to disambiguation pages, I've ended up turning a handful of the links created using the template on various pages into direct links to the article. If you get the chance to refine the template some more, hopefully they'll be helpful in giving you some good test cases — you'll know which actual article it should be pointing to, or if it's a valid redlink because the article for that call sign just hasn't been built yet. Good luck with the coding! Mlaffs (talk) 01:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm starting to think too that some of this might be a problem with how backlogged the job queue is. I'm now seeing cases where the template is working correctly, but "what links here" for the disambiguation page is still showing that the article is linking to it. Weird stuff. Mlaffs (talk) 03:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Affiliates of Imagination Theater
Thank you Thank you Thank you for disambig'ing those affiliates for Imagination Theater. I knew some of them needed that, but it was too big a task for me to do in an evening. Good job and thanks again! --Milonica (talk) 04:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOSDAB
Hi Concerning this edit to Kato: disambiguation items that lead to an item in an article should not expose the anchor, as per WP:MOSDAB. It only discourages piped links when used to hide the specializer of an article, and only if it is the direct target. I've changed the article but I saw that you touched quite a number of disambiguation pages recently. :) Cheers, Amalthea Talk 12:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up — I think that this is the only time I'd come across a situation like that, but I'll go back and check some of the pages I'd cleaned more recently and make sure. Thanks again! Mlaffs (talk) 14:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Vrraybadboy
It looks like other people got the IP and the sockpuppets. Thanks for letting me know, though. I'll ask a checkuser to look and see if there's anything else that we missed. Have a good day! J.delanoy gabs adds 17:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC) BTW, I don't see that one userbox on your page... :P

(disambugation) redirects
A number of reasons, they had been asked for, although I didn't follow the discussions, it prevents duplicate dab pages and it makes the dab pages non-orphan, which helps with the special page, Lonely Pages, as this currently picks up mostly dab pages. Rich Farmbrough, 23:44 11 October 2008 (UTC).

Thanks
Heya, I've noticed you've been contributing to articles similar to mine, i.e. related to activist/anarchist people. My article on Bruno Masse is threatened of deletion, could you please vote to keep it? You can vote [| here]. In solidarity! Lkeryl (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou very much for your edits on Muhammad Ahmad Said Khan Chhatari. -Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 06:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Disambigs
Thanks for all your hard work on Disambiguation pages with links/from templates. If you don't mind one suggestion, though -- before you move an entry into the "intentional links" section, please check to see if it's already there! I spent a lot of time sorting the links in that section alphabetically to make it easier to do exactly that. Cheers! --Russ (talk) 10:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I'd never even considered an entry already being there a possibility - certainly makes sense though (self-trout-slap). I'll keep that in mind - I promise. I've spent the last couple of months dabbing all the incoming links to radio/television station call sign dab pages, so it's a little weird going back to everyday, garden-variety dabbing! Mlaffs (talk) 23:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

WMRE
Thanks for catching my WMRE not WMRE (AM) mistakes. I have done that twice now. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • November 17, 2008 @ 00:55

Notability
Since I messed up my edit summary what I was trying to say was that it was removed on purpose because that notice is already located higher up in the page in regards to all the subtopics on the page. To place a second warning on just the athletes is both over emphasizing athletes and repetitive. -Djsasso (talk) 02:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If you haven't already, please read through the discussion that took place at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) over the last week up until I revised the language at WP:ATHLETE yesterday. There were a lot of issues covered, but one of the major issues with the previous language was that there developed an idea that some sports are "professional sports", and as a result it is impossible for anyone competing at the amateur level to be considered notable. WP:ATHLETE would often be cited as a reason for a delete !vote at Afd, regardless of the fact that there was significant secondary source material available (of course, it would also correctly be cited in some cases where no sources existed whatsoever).
 * I don't know if there are discussions ongoing regarding the sections on politicians, diplomats, entertainers, etc., so I don't know if a similar problem exists in those additional criteria. I do know that the problem exists in the section on athletes, so I believe a reminder that WP:ATHLETE is sub-ordinate to WP:NOTABILITY is both appropriate and necessary. Is it repetitive? Without a doubt. Would I rather the reminder wasn't necessary? Absolutely, but we play the cards we're dealt. Furthermore, I believe that a consensus had developed in that regard via the talk page discussion. That discussion and the resulting change have also helped get the ball rolling on additional discussion about the usefulness of WP:ATHLETE overall, with regard the lack of sourcing, preponderance of stubs, etc. on professional athletes and the problem of giving any group of people inherent notability, as currently exists for that group.
 * While that discussion continues, I'd ask that you let the existing wording stand and see what happens. Repetition isn't necessarily a bad thing. Mlaffs (talk) 02:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually did read through the discussion and felt that those notes were not necessary, whether or not they are being used as arguments or not admins should be familiar enough to realize those arguments have no merit and I actually feel that by putting that notice only on sports people causes the opposite problem and will cause people to argue but wait it says here they don't have to meet WP:ATHLETE even if they don't meet the more general guidelines. I'm not trying to be contrary as I do think athlete needs to be reformed but this debate comes up every couple months and in the end there are too many sports with too many complexities and no community wide consensus comes of it. In order to change this page you need to have the conversation and proposal on pump, a couple editors on its talk page are not a wide enough sample. -Djsasso (talk) 02:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd agree that the larger discussion ongoing now about getting rid of WP:ATHLETE needs a much broader forum for discussion than where it's happening, which is one reason why I'm staying out of it. But when the net effect of yesterday's change is to simply remind people to read the existing guidelines properly, well, I guess I naively figured that such a change had received more than enough discussion, particularly when that discussion involved users who had quite varying ideas about what constitutes notable with regard to athletes. I guess I'm in for many more months of biting my tongue every time someone says that "football is a professional sport" Oh well - serves me right for feeling chuff that I'd been able to have an impact that lasted for a whole day-and-a-half. :>) Mlaffs (talk) 03:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hopefully you don't take my edit the wrong way, as I did assume good faith on your part and definitely know you were trying to do good, I just didn't feel it necessary. Heck, I might be the one in the wrong, I just find that that section gets people worked up quite alot. That being said, a very large portion of people do agree with the statement, football is a professional sport. In fact in most proposals that side is by far the majority. I know at one time the wording on the page actually said in absence of a professional level of the sport then the highest level of amateur. But at some point someone came along and nixed it to the current version. Personally I would like to see something like Notability (sports) get in, but as you can see on its talk page, there was too much bickering over fine details. Luckily the sport I edit has a pretty tight reign on articles and afd any of the non-notable ones pretty quickly after being found. -Djsasso (talk) 03:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I don't take it in the wrong way at all - I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree. But that's the beautiful thing about this place when it's working correctly - two adults can have a calm, rational, disagreement and 'shake hands' at the end without the world coming to a nuclear meltdown. I'd honestly never seen that failed proposal before, but I absolutely love it. The reality is that this actually usually isn't an issue and shouldn't need all the drama. More often than not, when American football or hockey or baseball articles are nominated for deletion, they clearly fail the guidelines. In fact, I'm betting that the sport you edit is probably hockey, and the most debated deletion that I can remember for hockey during my time here was Mickey Renaud, which I think came to the correct result. I find the problems mostly come with the association football/soccer articles - while the folks at WP:FOOTY usually get it right, when they get it wrong, they get it spectacularly wrong. There seems to be a belief there that their own guidelines not only supercede WP:ATHLETE, but WP:NOTABILITY too, and it drives me nuts.
 * The really ironic thing is that, as much of a sports fan as I am, I hardly ever get involved with sports articles. I'm a died-in-the-wool gnome, and quite happy being so. Anyway, I'll look forward to seeing you around the donut shop again sometime. Mlaffs (talk) 04:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in my RfA
I just wanted to take a moment to say "thank you" for your very kinds words, all your work on disambiguation, and for taking the time and effort to participate in my recent RfA. As you may know, the discussion closed 66/0/1 and I'm now a holder of the mop. I will keep working to improve the encyclopedia and appreciate the trust which you have placed in me. - Dravecky (talk) 00:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, it was my pleasure. I hardly ever comment in Rfas, but I couldn't let yours pass. I've enjoyed when our paths have crossed, and I don't think it's any accident that you didn't garner a single oppose — not even a drive-by. Best of luck! Mlaffs (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Minor edit marking
Please remember to mark your edits as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.'

Sorry for templating you but the template says it well and your contributions seem to have a lot of minor edits marked which doesn't fit within the scope of the normal definition. Regards --Matilda talk 05:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope, that's fair comment. It appears that I've either inadvertently checked something in my settings, or I've knowingly checked it in my settings at some point in the past and gotten lax recently with making sure that it's unchecked where necessary when editing. Either way, it's disturbingly bad form. Luckily, the vast majority of my edits are for the purposes of disambiguation, which would correctly be viewed as minor. However, others — such as reverting vandalism or contributing in policy discussions or deletion debates, both of which I've been doing more often lately — are decidedly not minor. Thanks for the trout slap; I'll be more careful from now on, beginning with this very edit. Mlaffs (talk) 05:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Radio stations
Combination of a changed naming convention and some people not understanding what the convention had been changed to. I've been moving such articles whenever possible, but I haven't caught all of them yet — so if you find any others that don't need the (AM) disambiguator, feel free to move them. Bearcat (talk) 03:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

WEPS
Sorry to undo all your disambiguation work for WEPS but the dab page is unnecessary now that I've created a proper article for the Elgin radio station. That hat note should cover anybody seeking out the other meaning. Thanks for uncovering the urgent need for this radio station article. - Dravecky (talk) 06:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, no worries. There were only about four incoming links to the dab page once it was created, so it was hardly any work at all, and it wouldn't matter anyway since you took it to the correct result. I'm just happy I was able to shine the light on it.
 * In case you're interested, I created four other dab pages with redlinked radio stations over the weekend — KKRR, KCOM, KDRO, and KNIA, the latter two of which are probably also best handled with a hatnote once the radio station articles are created. Mlaffs (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've knocked out KCOM, KDRO, and KNIA with KKRR and accidental discovery KLOZ still to come. This Lightmouse/bot business killed my morning editing time and today has been less productive than it should have been. - Dravecky (talk) 07:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, polished those and a few others off yesterday. If you encounter any more disambiguation pages with a redlink to a radio station please feel free to drop me a line.  I'm always happy to create a new article for a radio station, especially when its absence is made so obvious. - Dravecky (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I know that there are dozens of them like that — there are especially a lot of them where the disambiguation could be handled by a hatnote once the article is in place. I was actually thinking the other day — because two ongoing projects just aren't enough — that one of things the radio station project doesn't have that the TV station project does is an actual list of the missing articles. I was thinking of just developing one on a subpage in my user space as I was going along with the tagging and dabbing, but there shouldn't be any reason it couldn't be a subpage of the project, should there? It'd certainly be easier than me dropping you a note any time I find one — you (or anyone else) could just check in at the subpage when you're in the mood to be creative. What do you think? Mlaffs (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: Template talk:Callsigndis/doc
I understand why it was there - just no real reason to have broken redirects around. If Template talk:Callsigndis were to be created then we should probably recreate the redirect. :-) - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

A Hand, if you would please
A user, XPL883 created ALOT of regional templates to replace the state-by-state ones. See this and you will understand what I mean. Another user, possibly the same one did the same thing on Rocky Mountain stations. I just finished reverted that mess and am onto this one.

The reason I am asking for help is I can't revert multiple edits to one page (don't have TWINKLE or anything). Would you be willing to help me out in this MASSIVE revert? I would appreciate it. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • December 22, 2008 @ 06:21


 * Just in the middle of a complicated page move, but happy to help in a few minutes or so when that's done. Link me to the ones that need doing and I'll give them a try. Mlaffs (talk) 06:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * When I get to them, which might take a couple, I will link you :) Thanks for your help! -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • December 22, 2008 @ 06:27
 * No sweat - actually, this might be easier than it appears at first blush. I looked at the NBC one you linked there, and there isn't really anything that needs to be done to that template specifically. The edits need to take place at the original ones for the individual states, and it's just a simple reversal of the redirect in those cases. Anyway, I'll be here if you need me. Mlaffs (talk) 06:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey Mlaffs....all edits, of course, are the most recent ones (unless noted)...and all by User:XPL883 please.
 * WNET
 * WCBS-TV
 * WNYW
 * WABC-TV
 * WMAR-TV
 * WNBC
 * WPIX
 * WNAC-TV
 * WCAX (due to another revert)
 * WDCW (due to edit onto of edit in question)
 * WWOR-TV
 * WBAL-TV (due to edit onto of edit in question)
 * WFSB
 * WTIC-TV (due to edit onto of edit in question)
 * WCTX (due to edit onto of edit in question)
 * WWBI-LP (due to edit onto of edit in question)
 * WCVB-TV
 * WLNE-TV
 * WTEN (due to edit onto of edit in question)
 * WVII-TV (due to edit onto of edit in question)
 * WMTW (due to edit onto of edit in question)
 * WBZ-TV (due to edit onto of edit in question)
 * WLWC (due to edit onto of edit in question)
 * WPXT (due to edit onto of edit in question)
 * WPME (due to edit onto of edit in question)
 * Maine Public Broadcasting Network (due to edit onto of edit in question)

When you knock those out, give me a holler. I am going to rest my tired fingers for a couple (carpel tunnel is acting up). Again...Thanks! -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • December 22, 2008 @ 06:47


 * All done. I also noticed that a lot of the network-by-state template themselves had been redirected to the combined ones. So, I've gone through ABC, CBS, CW, Fox, ION, MNTV, NBC, and PBS and undone all those redirects as well. There are still some redirects in place to the combined ones, but those were new ones that had been created for the states that didn't have templates; nothing to be done about those. That'll be about all I can help with — off to bed soon and then leaving town in the morning for the holidays. Mlaffs (talk) 07:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, many thanks for your help. I  'd the new redirect templates (the ones that were created for states without templates) and finished up the reverts.  Please accept the below barnstar as my thanks.  An Early Merry Christmas and Take Care... NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • December 22, 2008 @ 08:41

Merry Christmas, if that's okay...


Dravecky (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Christmas


Neutralhomer is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.

Template:Callsigndis
Hi, If you are looking for places to use your Callsigndis template, there's a Big List of them that are using disambig at the moment, but would benefit for using your template. -- WOSlinker (talk) 08:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed — I'm actually just in the middle of going through all those dab pages one at a time to make sure that at least the U.S. and Canadian stations on them are accurate. My intention was to swap the dab templates once that was done. Mlaffs (talk) 13:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)