User talk:R'n'B/Archive 17

Preparing to de-disambiguate chemical and molecular formulas
Russ, it looks like the proposal to de-disambiguate the chemical and molecular formula pages is moving steadily towards passing. Can you generate a list of all current incoming links to those pages, particularly links going through "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects? The redirects will need to be deleted, and the links made direct. I plan to handle all of the page change-overs and link fixes within the next week after the discussion closes. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC) --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * User:RussBot/Chemistry disambiguation links
 * User:RussBot/Molecular formula disambiguation links
 * Thanks. Excellent work, as always. bd2412  T 21:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * These are all done now. Thanks again! bd2412  T 17:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

A slightly less-belated barnstar for you!
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #FFFFFF;"
 * rowspan="2" valign="middle" | Super Disambiguator's Barnstar.png
 * rowspan="2" |
 * style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | The Super Disambiguator's Barnstar
 * style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | The Super Disambiguator's Barnstar is awarded to the winners of the Disambiguation pages with links monthly challenge, who have gone above and beyond to remove ambiguous links. Your achievment will be recorded at the Hall of Fame. This award is presented to User:, for successfully fixing 2831 links in the challenge of April 2012. Nick Number (talk) 14:02, ".  The script isn't exactly sophisticated, it just goes through the text one link at a time.  I'm sure if I spent some time refining it I could weed out some of these issues.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | The Super Disambiguator's Barnstar is awarded to the winners of the Disambiguation pages with links monthly challenge, who have gone above and beyond to remove ambiguous links. Your achievment will be recorded at the Hall of Fame. This award is presented to User:, for successfully fixing 2831 links in the challenge of April 2012. Nick Number (talk) 14:02, ".  The script isn't exactly sophisticated, it just goes through the text one link at a time.  I'm sure if I spent some time refining it I could weed out some of these issues.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Bot added redirect to disambig page
Yesterday I added a hatnote to Robert Butler (Virginia politician) pointing to a disambiguation page titled Robert Butler. Today, RussBot changed the link to point to Robert Butler (disambiguation), which is itself a redirect to Robert Butler, and then renamed the link "Robert Butler". Why? Rklear (talk) 22:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is explained at User:RussBot. Incidentally, the bot includes a link to this explanation in every edit summary. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Isn't there a better substitution for American?
Bot inserted United States to replace American - I believe a better substitution is Americans? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the fact that everyone in North, South and Central America could be called "Americans". That most Canadians, Mexicans, Costa Ricans, Brazilians and Chileans don't use it doesn't make it totally invalid. Eh?  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 14:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ottawahitech, you didn't tell me the context, so it is impossible for me to answer. Because the substitution depends on context, the bot only makes replacements in very limited situations where there should be little doubt, but if it made an error in a particular case please let me know.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry. The article in question was Michael Mastro. Ottawahitech (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, that's a tough case because the article has so little information about the person, and the sources listed are all recent news articles. There is no biographical information about the subject at all (which makes me wonder whether the article is appropriate at all, but that's a different question).  We know that Mr. Mastro is from the United States, but we don't know whether he self-identifies as an "American".  Ethnic identity is always subjective, and in the absence of reliable sources specifically documenting a person's identity, it is usually better for the encyclopedia to stick to objective criteria such as citizenship and residence.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Americans starts out thus: "Americans, or American people, are the citizens of the United States of America", I am therefore confused by your last sentence.
 * As far as the appropriateness of this article, I started it out as The Bankruptcy and extradition of Michael Mastro which was where I was trying to go with this article, but someone else moved it to Michael Mastro. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's quite unusual for us to have an article about the citizens of a country separate from the article about the country itself. Still, I tend to think that "United States" is more relevant to the context in which the link appears than "Americans".  Mr. Mastro is a real estate investor from the United States, and he is being extradited to the United States in connection with alleged acts committed there.  His citizenship is of secondary relevance.  However, it seems to me that readers are going to find the information they need either way.  (In fact, based upon WP:OVERLINK, one could argue for unlinking the word entirely, although I'm not taking that position.)  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

beypeople : moazzam mirza
thanks for minor edit in Moazzam Mirza article 17:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC) --BeyPeople (talk)--

Creating hatnotes and disambiguation pages
Hello, R'n'B. I was hoping to resurrect WP:Suggestions for name disambiguation or something similar, but need the help of someone who's an admin/experienced with bots. There are so many pages that need to be created still, and this is a really useful tool for identifying them. It can be set to pick up on every little detail (but this tends to get false positives and leave editors bogged down) or to just identify missing entries on dabs. User:Quadell ran it, but doesn't edit as much as he/she used to, and so no longer has the 'key'. If the lists were created, I'd work hard to get the disambiguation done. Anyway, thanks for all your hard work on here, and let me know if this is something you think you could help with. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 07:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, Boleyn. I'm having a hard time understanding how these lists were generated.  I see that source code is available, but it's in Perl, which I've never used.  I'm also not sure how it has changed over time.  At this point, I don't really have any idea how I could recreate this functionality.  Sorry.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for looking into it. If you contact User:Quadell, he does still edit about once a week and may be able to help. Let me know if you find a way to get it off the ground. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 08:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Persian Empire
Hi, you're actually misreading the old discussions. There was no consensus to redirect Persian Empire to Achaemenid Empire. The consensus was against Ottava Rima's attempt to use a poorly-written article instead of the redirect. Otherwise, Dbachmann, Folantin, Jagged 85 and the other editors who opposed Ottava Rima's position, did not have a problem with redirecting the page to Persian Empire (disambiguation) which is the more appropriate target article anyways, given the fact that Persian Empire has multiple usages. Mine and their position was against the poorly-written article that Ottava Rima insisted on keeping, and using Achaemenid Empire or Persian Empire (disambiguation) was not really the main issue, and nobody really objected either way. The only reason why the page had stayed for so long as a redirect to Achaemenid Empire, is because in the middle of the edit-war/arguments with Ottava Rima, someone locked the page, and the last version of the page stayed there, and everyone kind of forgot. Otherwise, I assure you the majority of the people who took part in the discussions and opposed Ottava Rima, and had established the consensus against him, would not object to the redirect to Persian Empire (disambiguation), as that wasn't what they were concerned about in the first place. Kurdo777 (talk) 00:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What I see is that there was an RFC and an extensive discussion on a proposal to change the redirect, which did not end with a consensus to make the change. If you want to re-start the discussion, fine; but you can't just unilaterally come in and decide what the consensus was three years ago in an unclosed discussion.  And, if the redirect is going to be changed, there are well over 1,000 existing links to "Persian Empire" in other articles that are going to have to be fixed first.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 00:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the RFC discussion were not about changing the redirect. If you read the entire discussion, you'll see that it was about keeping a portly-written article, or making the page a redirect. Also, my edit was not really a controversial one, and it does not affect the 1000 links you're talking about. The disambiguation page does include Achaemenid Empire. I made a bold edit, and if any of the editors who were involved in the old discussions, decided to oppose it, I would welcome new discussions. As it is, my edit did not really change the consensus or anything of the sort. It was an improvement. Kurdo777 (talk) 00:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you miss R'n'B's point as to the incoming links. Your edit increases the number of links pointing to a disambiguation page by 1,000. Our policy preference, however, is that such links are to be fixed before such a change is made. If the correct target for a use of the link, "Persian Empire" covers multiple items on the disambiguation page, that is a pretty good indicator that the page itself falls under WP:DABCONCEPT, and therefore should be an article after all. In this case, all of the terms asserted to be ambiguous are in fact merely chronological phases referencing a specific geographic area, a circumstance expressly covered by WP:DABCONCEPT as one "that is capable of being described in an article". Maybe the article that was there before is no good (I haven't delved into its qualities) but the choice is not between that article and a redirect, but between any article and a redirect. Our policies on this point would have something there other than a disambiguation page, because there is some quality shared by all of the links identified that makes each of them a Persian Empire. bd2412  T 16:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ISTM that such an article already exists at History of Iran, so I've changed the redirect to point there. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A sensible solution. I think there's enough material of interest to cover a freestanding article, but everything that would go into it is already at History of Iran. Cheers!  bd2412  T 16:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

China aircraft redirects
Hi, I noticed that you just met me halfway deleting redirects from hyphens to dashes for the old categories renamed per CFDW. Are you also setting up redirects for the new names, like Category:Chinese attack aircraft 1950-1959 for Category:Chinese attack aircraft 1950–1959? – Fayenatic  L ondon 15:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I noticed that too! No, I'm not setting up new redirects.  By default, WP:CATRED discourages the creation of new category redirects.  Since I don't have any way of knowing whether these are categories that are likely to fall within the exceptions, I leave it to others to decide whether redirects are necessary.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're using an automated tool that could help, please feel free to join in... WT:CFDW is a recent reminder of a rule for when we move from a hyphen to a dash. The change in these categories is a step away from that, so perhaps they are not required after all. I'll ask there. – Fayenatic  L ondon 15:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

You are blaming me for making a necessary change
So by creating New Democratic Party (Canada) and adjusting the re-directs, problems have arose, which you are focusing the blame on me for. So much for the "be welcoming" policy on Wikipedia. Sorry, but someone who had some foresight should have seen that there are more than one "New Democratic Party" in the world - and that person's lack of foresight caused this. So what do you want, for me to undo it, to restore it to New Democratic Party? — Preceding unsigned comment added by R-41 (talk • contribs) 18:20, November 24, 2012‎ (UTC)


 * Hello, R-41. I did not intend to "blame" you for anything, and I did not say that changing New Democratic Party to a disambiguation page was wrong.  If I said anything that gave you the impression that I was criticizing you, I am sorry for that.
 * What I was trying to do was simply to point out that your actions had consequences that you might not have anticipated. There were something like 2,500 links to this page before your changes, and (based on an admittedly quick review) the vast majority of them were correct because they referred to the Canadian party.  On the other hand, a small percentage (let's say 100 of the 2,500) were wrong because they were referring to some other party with the same name.  So, your changes were an improvement to 100 articles because the links no longer take the reader to an incorrect article; but they were detrimental to 2,400 articles because they now take the reader to a disambiguation page instead of the correct article.
 * I was not pointing this out to criticize you, though, but to try to help you to understand the implications of these changes. When a page move or redirect affects many existing links, it is usually a good idea to analyze the consequences for those other links and try to fix them before acting, or at least immediately afterwards.  It takes more time to get everything right, but in the long run that is better for our readers.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The last change by R&B(?) has done a good job because he was right after all - there are enough articles on Ismailism already. Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 13:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Minor problem with User:R'n'B/birthdeath.js
Could you edit out or remove the brackets in the following line in your birthdeath.js
 * // years in other places, like

The Persondata with brackets puts the page into the tracking category Category:Persondata templates without name parameter Bgwhite (talk) 07:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Solved. Thanks for the heads-up!  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Meixcan Empire
Sorry about that. I did it because the "Mexican Empire" existed until awhile as an article. I wasn't aware that it had been erased and turned into a disambiguation page. --Lecen (talk) 12:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Multi-bearer network
You added a copypaste tag to Multi-bearer network for understandable reasons, the material comes form a page with a copyright notice. However, as I mentioned on the talk page, per discussion at User_talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive_48 I believe the material is OK, at least with respect to copyright. It is not very readable, so if another editor chooses to remove it, or rewrite it, I'll be fine, but I simply turned it into a quote, and added the source.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  19:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

RussBot changes: Museu Nacional do Azulejo vs Mosteiro da Madre de Deus
Hi R'n'B,

Your bot has recently redirected the category commons:Category:Museu Nacional do Azulejo to commons:Category:Mosteiro da Madre de Deus in some of my pictures (e.g. ). I don't think it is a good idea to merge the two categories. Although the Museu Nacional do Azulejo (National Museum of the Azulejo) is located in the building of the Monastery of Madre de Deus, the tiles exhibited there have nothing to do with the monastery. The correct way to categorize the tiles is with the category commons:Category:Museu Nacional do Azulejo, leaving the features having to do only with the building (e.g. the church or the small cloister) with the category commons:Category:Mosteiro da Madre de Deus. What do you think? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have an opinion. The bot does not decide which categories should be redirected; it just follows the category redirect templates inserted on category pages by other users.  If you think the redirect on commons:Category:Museu Nacional do Azulejo should be changed, you can either make a bold change yourself, or discuss it on the category's talk page.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks, I will remove the redirect. 89.154.246.231 (talk) 13:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Skycity (disambiguation)


A tag has been placed on Skycity (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either
 * disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
 * disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you made a mistake. This is not a disambiguation page, it is a redirect to a disambiguation page.  When you moved the target disambiguation page to a different title, you should have changed the redirect to point to the new target, instead of tagging it for deletion.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I still believe what I did was the correct thing to do. The article 'Skycity' itself now goes directly to 'Sky City', leaving no use for a 'Skycity (disambiguation)', than a 'Sky City (disambiguation)', which now did exist. So I nominated the page for deletion. If there was some policy I mistook or anything, please tell me. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Comparison of media players
You are invited to join the discussion at. Codename Lisa (talk) 05:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Ongjin County
Hi. You edited Ongjin County. The page is being discussed at Talk:Sinyang, South Pyongan. Sawol (talk) 11:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Skycity (disambiguation)


A tag has been placed on Skycity (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either
 * disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
 * disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Seriously? (A) You are nominating the page for speedy deletion under a criteria that says "this is an orphaned disambiguation page" but the page you are nominating is not a disambiguation page, it is a redirect.  (B) You did this once before and I removed the speedy deletion tag.  Repeating an action you know to be controversial is abusive.  Please stop; if you insist on deleting this, take it to RFD.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A) I did not know I was placing it under the wrong category - The category looked good enough to me when I nominated it. I did state why I was nominating it, and did not get any reply that I was wrong. B) A page's original contributor CANNOT remove a CSD. So I was completely entitled to re-add the CSD.
 * And I shall be taking it to RFD. Thanks. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh and CSD is for non-controversial deletions. Since the page move, it had become quite redundant a page. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I may be wrong, but I doubt that other users commenting on the RFD will consider this a non-controversial deletion. There is a strong presumption in favor of keeping redirects unless they are erroneous or misleading, and I can't see how either of those would apply here.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not know that. My opinion was that since the page was redundant as a redirect, we ought to remove it. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)