User talk:Uanfala/Archive 6

Template:AfC draft editintro
I noticed you marked Template:AfC draft editintro as historical, but it seems to be in use by the Article Wizard. Am I missing something, or was that a mistake? KSFT (t&#124;c) 07:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I was told by at Template talk:AfC draft editintro, and there's a comment at Wikipedia talk:Article wizard that points out the reason it appears not to be used. In light of all that, I'll remove the "historical" template, but the text really neeeds updating. – Uanfala (talk) 10:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

JBH at RFA
I, too, was bothered by the point you raised: indeed I had brought it up at JBH's talk page, but didn't see your post till now. It's a little worse than you think; aside from the four editors sanctioned in that case, three others involved in related conflicts have all !voted "oppose". Before this RFA, those seven editors had all of 8 !votes between them. I find this suspicious, to say the least, but unfortunately not surprising (posting this here for WP:BEANS reasons). I don't know that there's anything to be done about it, except for pointing it out if this goes to a crat-chat (which I intend to do). Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 11:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't know what can be done other than to draw attention to the fact. If there's anything that shows how suspicious all of this is, that's probably the difference between the likelihood that any single one of those ten editors would vote "oppose" (precisely 50%, as two of the ten are currently blocked) and the likelihood that a random active wikipedian would vote, which is at least two orders of magnitude lower. This whole situation is making me wonder whether in future RfAs (and in any community desysop procedure that might ever exist), it won't make sense to require !voters to disclose any conflicts they have had with the nominee. – Uanfala (talk) 11:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed. A lot of similar stuff happened in my RFA, but at least I was an ARBIPA regular, and was expecting it. What we have here is someone who genuinely tried to help out at ANI and then described his experience at AE get dinged for it... Vanamonde (talk) 14:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

6 August, 2018
''Hi Uanfala ! Please review my Draft:Chotok Waterfalls. I had submitted it a week ago. A user said, "It has no better sources." I added better and I cannot add more sources because there are no other sources on Google or Bing about it. You can also search about Chotok Waterfalls on Google and Bing, you will also see there are some sources about it. I want to create it because there are a few articles of Waterfalls of Pakistan on Wikipedia. So, Please accept it. Thank You.''

PakEditor (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've moved the draft into mainspace: the waterfalls are probably notable. – Uanfala (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Invisible character
Those redirects to Etruscan language etc. were a really good idea! I can't guess which character you used, and I'd like to know so that I could try the same test in another context ... Andrew Dalby 17:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The invisible character I used was a zero-width joiner. The identity of the character doesn't really matter: the goal is to get pageviews that come (almost) entirely form the dab page, so any redirect will do as long as it's one that readers are very unlikely to stumble upon by themselves. Something that helps is the addition of R unprintworthy at the bottom of the redirect: it ensures that the redirect will be dispreferred in the search box drop-down suggestions. – Uanfala (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Moch) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Moch, Uanfala!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Don't forget to fix incoming links post-move, per WP:USURPTITLE."

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

--Animalparty! (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I check incoming links to try and suss out any meanings that might not be listed on the dab page, and I do fix links if the topic area is tricky. The links to Moch, however, are trivial, so I've left it to those who are more keen than me on fixing dablinks. The WP:DPL project isn't, as far as I'm aware, short of eager volunteers. – Uanfala (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In this case, it can reasonably be inferred that all incoming links were intended for the previous target, i.e. Moch, Chuuk, or at the very least, that they weren't referring to any of the person's now populating Moch. I'll go ahead and do the hard work. Thanks. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Willow Tree
There should be no links to disambiguation pages, so now that you made Willow Tree a dab page, would you please follow up and fix all the incoming links? (DisamAssist, Dabfix and Dabsolver are helpful.) Thanks. — Gorthian (talk) 02:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixing dablinks is one of the lowest-priority tasks to do with dab pages, and one that sees no shortage of volunteers. There are some relevant additional considerations in the thread immediately above. – Uanfala (talk) 10:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Descent (word)
Hello, Uanfala. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Descent (word), for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:


 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&action=edit edit the page]
 * 2) remove the text that looks like this:
 * 3) save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Nick Moyes (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As explained in the creation edit summary, this was an experiment to gauge how many readers click on the wiktionary link at the dab page Descent (3 of the 80 people who viewed the dab every day followed that link). The experiment is over, so I've had that G7-ed. – Uanfala (talk) 09:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Mankri) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Mankri, Uanfala!

Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"This has had significant changes."

To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Boleyn (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, ? – Uanfala (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You are edit warring, knowing full well it doesn't meet guidelines. Calm down, and work on it - that's 3 reverts now. Work on it in draftspace first. This is why, despite you having editing so long, you are still not autopatrolled. Boleyn (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So, I'm edit-warring and you're not? Alright, but if you're unhappy with an article, and your draftification has been objected to, instead of repeatedly moving it to draft space, you should take it to WP:AFD. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 16:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Why are you continuing to stalk my edits and edit warring, going beyond WP:3RR and ignoring the opinions of me and another editor? What are you gaining from this bullying behaviour? Boleyn (talk) 13:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Please, I'm not stalking your edits and there's no need to take disagreements personally. You must be referring to Willi Kimmritz: I think we've already talked about this at some length on your talk page. I'm not sure what I can say other to emphasise again that you're free to draftify whatever new article you choose, but once this has been objected to, you're not expected to keep moving it to the draftspace; you can take it to WP:AFD if you feel that notabiltiy is an issue. I'm not sure where I've gone beyond 3RR. – Uanfala (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Mankri for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mankri is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Mankri 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. Boleyn (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Hazara, Pakistan
Yes so difficult. For instance, what does " lyricist writer who wrote in more than twenty outstanding films both in India and Pakistan" mean? Did he write screenplays? Poems that were recited in films? Songs that were performed in films? And I don't know how I could have fixed "Due to this high literacy rate Hazara division produce greats son and daughters to the Pakistan and they contribute in the growth and development of Pakistan"... Drmies (talk) 00:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to be asking a question here, so I'm not sure I should be trying to answer, but no, I don't think it's very difficult to throw away a couple of rubbish sentences and reword the one that is left behind. At least not significantly more so than hitting the undo button. – Uanfala (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You may think that, but cleaning up other people's mess isn't necessarily fun. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I am in the same boat as Drmies. I don't mind if other kind souls come and improve it and, in particular, the original editor themselves. But it is better to strike when it is hot than to leave the bad content there potentially indefinitely. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

minor english polishing
Body

line 3 'their' can be substituted with a better word.

Yours truly, II Allan Core — Preceding unsigned comment added by II Allan Core (talk • contribs) 09:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I get what you're referring to. Is that my userpage? What better word would you suggest? Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 09:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Moving "Madi language"
I'm sorry I didn't contact you about this while it was happening - my direct involvement with this language has passed, but I still wanted to contact you and resolve this issue.

Currently, Madi language is a disambiguation page which links to the following three languages: Gira, Jamamadi, and Ma'di. The reason this is a problem for me is that "Jamamadí" is not a synonym for Madí, or even a dominating or prestige dialect of the same. The speaking population of the Jarawara and Banawa dialects combined outnumbers that of Jamamadí, and multiglossia is rare or nonexistent. The current situation is tantamount to labelling English as "American" (albeit on a much smaller scale, of course). The same goes for documentation - although the language is indeed obscure as a whole, nonetheless Jarawara is by far the best-documented, which skews perception much more than bare population does. For this reason the article discusses Jarawara almost exclusively, which is doubtless confusing in an article titled "Jamamadí".

Meanwhile, the two articles that compete with it for "Madi" both have useful titles which are not themselves "Madi". The Gira language does have an alternate name (obviously), and one that's apparently interchangeable - I don't know much about the language itself, but the precedent set by the article and its ISO identifier (grg) would imply this. In contrast to Madí, practically no documentation exists for this language and I find it extremely unlikely that anyone is going to have a problem using an alternate name. Meanwhile, Ma'di - which admittedly has five hundred times more speakers than both other languages combined, and good documentation - has a completely distinct name (hence the apostrophe, which has phonemic meaning here), one which again is not going to cause much of a problem for anyone motivated enough to search for it.

That's why, from my perspective, it would be both useful and harmless to have "Madi" direct simply to Jamamadi language, with of course a disambiguation warning linking to Gira and Ma'di. The current arrangement is based on a misconception and perpetuates it, while simultaneously being inconvenient for everybody. My solution might be inconvenient for somebody, maybe - and of course I'm not forgetting that this is all extremely esoteric - but, I think, less inconvenient overall and actually accurate.

Let me know what you think. Kielbasa1 (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... is your ultimate aim to rename Jamamadí language to Madi language? Wouldn't it be better in that case to have it at Madí language (with the acute accent), which is the form of the name you've used in the article? That way all the three languages will have distinct titles and Madi language could remain a disambiguation page - and the term is ambiguous: it is a common alternative spelling of the Sudanic language (see the bibliography at glottolog) and apparently attested for the Papuan one. Or do you believe that the Arawan language is the primary topic for "Madi", because the diacritics aren't sufficient as a distinguishing title? But then the same reasoning would also apply to "Ma'di", woudln't it? – Uanfala (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is my goal - and yes, I think that the acute accent (which doesn't appear on English keyboards) is insufficient as a distinguishing title, whereas the apostrophe is. Ideally I'd have both the accented and non-accented form redirect to Jamamadi language, just like it does with "Jamamadi / Jamamadí" at the moment. Since we use forms similar to "Madi" as alternatives for both of the other languages, it seems best to me to use the one that doesn't have an alternative - for Jamamadi-Jarawara-Banawa - as the primary article. Kielbasa1 (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, Jamamadi language has now been moved to Madí language, so that's OK, right? As for Madi language, it's not so much a question of whether the accent or the apostrophe is more or less likely to be omitted, it's about the fact that the term Madi (without diacritics or apostrophes) has been commonly used in the literature on both the Arawan and the Sudanic language. For example, when I search on google scholar for "Madi language", I don't see any of the two to be predominating in the results. Anyway, there's no need for the matter to depend on me: you can always start a formal discussion (see WP:RM: the proposal would involve moving Madi language to Madi language (disambiguation); and your argument should be to the effect that the Arawan language is the primary topic). – Uanfala (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Pissed off
You really piss me off sometimes. Regarding this, I have already started a new AfD and you need to stop misrepresenting things. I know you are an inclusionist but it really narks people when you go to lengths like this, and I don't mean just me. - Sitush (talk) 14:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I had reverted the wrong edit, but I've already corrected that . You're aware that you're misrepesenting things yourself here, aren't you? – Uanfala (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No. And a week on, you are still not getting it. 1943 = Raj era. Raj era sources are not reliable, even if reprinted in a collection in 2017. - Sitush (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Nizamani
You were bold in adding that source, I removed it, you added it back, I removed it again. And now you have added it back again. There is a discussion going on, as you are well aware, and you are at the limit of triggering the three revert rule as well as doing stuff contrary to the widely-accepted WP:BRD essay. Please self-revert, otherwise I think this is a matter for admins to look at. - Sitush (talk) 22:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, you removed the source once with what I think we agreed was an erroneous rationale, and I reverted it. Then you boldly removed it again for another reason (that's the B), I reverted (that's the R), and I guess here we're at the D. If we really do want to discuss that, then maybe WP:RSN would be the best place? I don't think the issue is particularly important though: the same statement can be supported by another source (see AfD), and if the article does end up getting deleted, then the whole thing becomes moot. – Uanfala (talk) 11:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018
Hi Uanfala, I just wanted to let you know that I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&page=User%3AUanfala added] the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! GABgab 16:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this should hopefully mean less work for everyone. At least it will get rid of those pesky entries in my watchlist that I get everytime someone patrols a redirect I've created. – Uanfala (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Panjabi
Hi Uanfala,

We sum population figures for just about all transnational language articles on WP, which is why we so often have a range of dates for the ref. Is there some reason Punjabi should be different? I agree that to some extent it's adding apples and oranges, but given that the figures themselves are often wrong (e.g. follow a different definition than we have of the language, rely on incomplete self-reporting, count ethic pop that doesn't actually speak the language, etc.), we probably don't have better than 1 sig fig anyway. Anyway, that's a general enough problem that it should be probably be discussed at Wikiproject language rather than on individual articles.

The artificial distinction of Punjabi was one of Hammarstrom's criticisms of Ethnologue. Sure, speakers of east or west dialects can be found in both countries due to pop movements, but the determination of which dialects are eastern and which western is still defined by the border. — kwami (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify what by Hammarstrom you're referring to? I'm not aware of anything he's written about Punjabi, and I hope it's not the glottolog entry that you have in mind. My objection to summing population figures was probably a bit more "theoretical" than it ought to have been, but that's acceptable only if the overall result isn't stated in too precise terms. If we had the population as "well over a hundred million" then that's fine no matter what. The problem with the number "120 million" is that it's precise enough to be wrong. It only includes the Eastern speakers from India and the Western ones from Pakistan, it doesn't take account of the few million Western speakers in India, or of the diaspora. If these are added – and here I'm going by only what I see on ethnologue and the Indian census – then the total is just above 125 million and that is – at the level of granularity we use in the infobox – 130 million. – Uanfala (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Differentiation advice needed.
User:Wakowako has an opinion to delete or merge pages that he/she feels to be duplicate. As you have already pointed it out that an administrative sub-division and a settlement are altogether different from one another, your opinion will be worth alot at Shahpur tehsil, Betul district. Thanks. Pragmocialist (talk) 11:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , a tehsil is an administrative unit normally centred on a town, but it's usually much bigger than it and can often include other towns and a large number of villages, typically around a hundred or so. The tehsil and the town are two different topics that warrant separate articles; see aslo Category:Tehsils of India. If you still believe the article should be deleted, you can take it to WP:AFD. And while we're at it,, is there any reason why this article is titled using the district as a disambiguator? As far as I can see it's the only tehsil with this name in the state, so I'd reckon it could use a more recognisable title, like Shahpur tehsil, Madhya Pradesh. – Uanfala (talk) 12:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Correct! For lower sub-divisions, that upper sub-division should be taken as disambiguator which has not has a lower sub-division of the same name. Thank You!!Pragmocialist (talk) 17:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

 * Well, that's something I was't aware of until someone pointed it out to me not long ago; it's really conterintuitive at first, but make sense once you think about it (otherwise pings would just be triggered every time a signature is added by Sinebot or a comment is moved or archived). – Uanfala (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have been hounded by the sinebot but that stage is gladly over. Agree this is indeed counterintuitive. I think the ping script just had to look at the addition of the new signature text to be able to decide if a ping is needed or not. moving a comment, isnt actually an addition of new signature, so it should not generate a ping. but anyway this is for Village pump and the devs to decide and I am sure they have considered all possibilities. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  21:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

pa v. pan
We have had this conversation before.

html 5 definition for the  attribute has this: "The lang attribute (in no namespace) specifies the primary language for the element's contents and for any of the element's attributes that contain text. Its value must be a valid BCP 47 language tag, or the empty string."

- §3.2.5.2. The lang and xml:lang attributes

BCP 47 has these: "The Language Subtag Registry maintained by IANA is the source for valid subtags: other standards referenced in this section provide the source material for that registry."

- §2.2 Language Subtag Sources and Interpretation

"When languages have both an ISO 639-1 two-character code and a three-character code (assigned by ISO 639-2, ISO 639-3, or ISO 639-5), only the ISO 639-1 two-character code is defined in the IANA registry."

- §2.2.1. Primary Language Subtag (page 9)

sil.org (custodian for ISO 639-3) shows that ISO 639-2/-3 code  is equivalent to ISO 639-1 code. Library of Congress (custodian for ISO 639-2) shows that ISO 639-2 code  is equivalent to ISO 639-1 code.

If you search the IANA Language Subtag Registry for Panjabi or Punjabi you find this record: %% Type: language Subtag: pa Description: Panjabi Description: Punjabi Added: 2005-10-16 Suppress-Script: Guru %%

Because  is not defined in the IANA language subtag registry, it is not a valid code for use with the   attribute. Any browser or screen-reader reading Majhi dialect and encountering this html:

cannot be expected to know what  means; browsers and screen-readers are expected to know what   means.

Perhaps the best way around this issue is to rewrite that article's first sentence. There are two language codes in that sentence. The first,  has this IANA definition: %% Type: language Subtag: pnb Description: Western Panjabi Added: 2009-07-29 Macrolanguage: lah %% That definition is overridden in Module:Language/data/wp languages. Why? I have no idea; the provenance of that module is not at all well defined. So perhaps rewrite to this:
 * Majhi (ਮਾਝੀ) is the ...
 * Majhi (ਮਾਝੀ) is the ...

(Eastern not linked because Eastern Punjabi language is simply a redirect to Punjabi language.)

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the detailed message. If a lang template produces output that browsers don't understand, then I agree with you that this should be fixed. However, I'm not seeing that here. As far as I can see – and you pointed that out yourself in the previous discussion – the promotion of three-letter codes to two-letter codes already happens template-internally. So that  (three-letter code) outputs html with the correct two-letter code:.
 * I still don't see the point of going around "promoting" the language codes within wikitext given that the html output is the same. As was pointed out before, three letter codes are occasionally preferable because they're more intuitive, and sometimes nothwithstanding the complete equivalence as apparently defined in the standard, a three-letter code might have different nuances of use than the two-letter one.
 * And as for the way Module:Language/data/wp languages defines ISO 639:pnb, this is better than the alternatives. The language is known as "Punjabi" (pnb and pan are simply different registers of the same language variety, they aren't distinguished in their common name), and the addition of "Western" is as far as I know an invention of SIL. The use of labels containing "Eastern" or "Western" should be avoided here: these are awkward and also superfluous: any text in "Eastern" Punjabi is immediately distinguishable from one in "Western" Punjabi because of the starkly different writing system. – Uanfala (talk) 13:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't really buy the 'intuitive' argument. Codes are codes and, always, codes must be decoded for their meanings to be known.  These codes decode to specific definitions set by the ISO 639 custodians.  At en.wiki, with its primarily English speaking editors and readers, all of ,  ,  , for 'French', are perhaps more-or-less easy to decode without reference to the standards;  ,   for Armenian, as an example, not so much.  This 'intuitive preference', it seems to me, is more like 'I'm familiar with this; I'm not familiar that' which, I suspect, is strongly influenced by the languages that we speak, have studied, have written about, ...
 * When two codes have identical definitions, there can be no nuance. Because the definitions of   and   are identical and fixed, the only way to express nuance in this application is to add something to one code – within the bounds set by the IETF language tag, BCP 47, and html rules – to distinguish the one code from the other.  I do not know what that addition might be because I do not know what nuance might be applied to either of these codes.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Question regarding dab tool
Hey Uanfala, I saw your post on WP:FILM and was wondering what tool you used to get that information. --Gonnym (talk) 01:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's Dabfix, more specifically its "Missing entries" report (it gets updated regularly). Though it does take some manipulating to get it into one of those lits. If you're interested in the full list of film articles with missing entries, or something similar, let me know. – Uanfala (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I was actually thinking lately about how to handle missing episode articles with missing entries (I've already have most episode which should be listed on dab pages listed here Category:Television episode articles with short description and disambiguated page names). Think you can help me get a report (if it is even possible) which of those are missing from the dab pages? --Gonnym (talk) 10:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, if the episode's title has a parenthetical disambiguator, and there exists a dab page for the ambiguous title, then it should be somewhere in the report of Dabfix. A somewhat more malleable list of the articles from the report can be found at User:Uanfala/dab/missing entries 2018-11-26. Then you can run petscan to give you a list of the articles that are both in Category:Television episode articles with short description and disambiguated page names and linked from that page: https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=6558779. That's what you have in mind, right? – Uanfala (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly what I had in mind, thank you! So the results shown in the PetScan are the ones missing from dab pages right? Also, this list does not show results for which a dab page does not exist, right? --Gonnym (talk) 15:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it only shows articles missing from dab pages. If there's no dab page at either "Foo" or "Foo (disambiguation)", then the article won't be listed here. – Uanfala (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The missing entries report has features turned off as the report is (still) over 10,000 disambiguation page fixes. When I was writing it, I was use to television episode in the form of Bar (Foo TV episode).  I could add emoji icon for them like for biographies.  — Dispenser 04:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Television episodes generally are either Bar "(Foo episode) or Bar (Foo)". There are a few other lesser used styles which are currently in discussion to be formalized but those are currently very rare cases. --Gonnym (talk) 11:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait, that's how things used to, but I've just stumbled upon a counterexample. Could it be that has upgraded Dabfix to look for missing hatnotes at primary topics? – Uanfala (talk) 02:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not in the last year, but (IIRC) it will throw warning if certain pages are not reachable. — Dispenser 04:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)


 * just double-checking with you in case you still make any use of User:Uanfala/dab/missing entries 2018-11-26 (or the associated petscan query). If not, I'm probably going to blank it in order to reduce clutter in the "what links here" lists for the dab pages. A more up-to-date variant of this list is User:Uanfala/dab/missing entries latest, which will likely get updated from time to time. – Uanfala (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC) Oh, and incidentally, there appear to be 199 articles with titles containing (TV series) that are not linked from the relevant dab pages. Do you know of anyone who might be interested in adding them? – Uanfala (talk) 02:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, you can delete it. I wanted to contribute and add missing episodes, but after some disagreements with some of the editors of that specific Wikiproject, decided that my time is better spent elsewhere. Thanks for the the helping with the original list and sorry I couldn't help more. --Gonnym (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Category:Redirects from Baluchi-language terms has been nominated for discussion
Category:Redirects from Baluchi-language terms, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 17:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)