As these are generated by a bot, and I occasionally check or patrol the status of these, I moved them to a special archive: /Disambiguation link notifications. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My content creator's to-do list has items so old they've grown mold[edit]
Since you run MergeBot and RMCDBot, I was wondering, if it were possible to create an auto generated list like WP:RM has but for WP:PM, that links to the centralized discussion area, and lists the topics to be merged (from/to/with) ? As the current MergeBot already generates arrows indicated from/to/with, it would seem a modification of template:requested move/dated/multi would do to handle such an automated listing based on a standardized talk section header.
You're welcome. One final push to clear most of the rest, and then it will be time to take a break. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I finally used AWB to populate Category:Redirects to user namespace; it now has over 900 members. My technique was to Make list from source Special page: All Redirects in namespace Wikipedia: – the category hasn't yet been fully populated for other namespaces. I think all of the cross-namespace redirect categories can and should eventually be populated by bots... AWB may be able to do that with a sufficiently sophisticated configuration. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See HERE for the regex find & replace used for this. I manually monitored this and had to skip some that were already rcat templated; also may have missed some. wbm1058 (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Or the database query method used to generate User:Largoplazo/WP Redirects may be a more efficient method than my AWB special page walk-through. I need to figure out how to do that myself. @Paine Ellsworth: FYI. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the ping, Wbm1058! That's pretty cool stuff you're doing – and waay outside my full comprehension. Please keep up the great work! OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")!Paine 15:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SELECTconcat("*[[Talk:",p.page_title,"]] redirects to [[:",r.rd_title,"]]")FROMredirectrINNERJOINpagepONp.page_id=r.rd_fromWHEREp.page_namespace=1ANDr.rd_namespace=0ORDERbypage_title;
There's really no point to having test cases for data modules, since there's no code to test. Also, doc pages that contain a #invoke of the module itself exist so that TemplateSandbox can be used to preview changes of the module. It's fine to add "real" documentation, but the #invoke must not be disabled or removed when doing so. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments about the state of accuracy in the world on Jimbo's talk page are very interesting. I would like to explore this topic further. I'm particularly fond of your statement, "Society as a whole perhaps doesn't value accuracy as much as it should, and indeed Wikipedia editors should strive for a higher level of accuracy." Heck, I think some kind of variation on this should be our guiding principle. You've really nailed something here, and I think it's worth pursuing. One counterargument to pursuing accuracy, however, might attempt to appeal to the blind men and an elephant analogy. How would you respond to this? Viriditas (talk) 08:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The best we can do is report the truth as best as we know it, and be open-minded to new information that can give us a better vision of the truth. As more "parts of the elephant" become known to us, the more accurate our "truth" becomes. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I remember that you once intended to take your Timeline of DOS operating systems article to featured status, but did not take time to familiarize yourself with the process. Looking at that article, the only thing that is not compliant with the featured list criteria is the lead section. Basically, the only thing required to promote it to FL status would be to expand the lead section by adding an introduction to DOS operating systems. After that, you are good to go and can nominate it according to the instructions on WP:FLC. (Since this article is a list, the Good Article process does not apply.) Good luck! sst✈ 04:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see, apparently there is no "good list" equivalent to Good Article, so I can skip that step and go straight to becoming a member of Category:Featured lists, where around a couple dozen featured timelines can be found. Thanks! As I haven't made any significant updates to that since February, I suppose I'm due to get back to it and finish it off soon. Wbm1058 (talk) 11:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi wbm, I see you mention this book on your user page. Does the main thesis have implications for how Wikipedia works, and if so, on what time scale? - Dank (push to talk) 15:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A main thesis of the book is that accelerating technology improvements will reduce employment, and over time this will effect more higher-skilled occupations. We see this already with jobs coming back to the US from China... because they are replacing people with bots. Yes, a few more jobs for Americans who are skilled at bot development, operations and maintenance. But way fewer jobs than were displaced in China. Of course, at Wikipedia there are relatively few editors that work for money. We already have very intelligent bots such as ClueBot NG that help tremendously with tasks such as vandalism reversion. That one has over 4 million edits now! Bots also help with spelling corrections. There could be further enhancements to these tasks that could reduce the need for new page patrollers and spelling correctors. Time scale is dependent on volunteer contributions, or possible funding by the Wikimedia Foundation. wbm1058 (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The future seems to be coming at us pretty fast. I try to stay informed-but-neutral. - Dank (push to talk) 17:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would. And
I'd be glad for an invite to help you with any queries or discussions on this matter. — Cpiral§Cpiral 05:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
History No commits between August 2007 and March 2010. So where is the June 2009 change to support this?
@Cpiral: so clearly prefix did at least briefly take pipes. Unfortunately, the volunteer developer of that, Rainman, isn't active any more either, and I haven't been able to locate his code changes that implemented that feature. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the history lesson. Interesting. Maybe useful.
George, I wouldn't know how to write a script to change the interface, and I'm not keen on switching between two less-than-ideal interfaces. There should only need be one, fully-functional interface that's adequate for efficiently handling all use cases. What we have now is not such an interface, and we should focus on getting that one improved. I'm frustrated with the current means of interacting with the developers – there is a confusing array of different "phabricators" on this, I'm not keen on the phabricator editing interface, and I don't know whether I should add to an existing phab or start a new one, so I prefer using Village Pump where I can use Wikitext. As I need to use this interface to perform specific tasks, I may report issues I have with the current interface that make it more difficult to get the job done. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. But, per "defines a solution rather than a problem" I don't know if solutions developed in the idea lab would be welcomed by the developers. I'm not happy with the "handcuffs" placed on us with regard to modes of interaction with developers. Maybe if I just present problems to WP:VPT, and let them either tell me how to achieve my desired result, or make changes to the interface that allow me to achieve my desired result. wbm1058 (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, but IMO I don't think WP:VPT is a place for general feedback on any software or something. VPT is used for technical difficulties, bugs, glitches, and other tech issues that need immediate attention (not sure whether I phrased it correctly). One complaint describing none of these, and they'll either advise you to write a personal script/gadget or write one for you as they did before. But you're welcome to choose any appropriate venue. I still think the "idea lab" is best bet. --George Ho (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At the top of WP:VPT there is a notice "Bug reports and feature requests should be made in Phabricator" but that's just redirecting us back to an interface I find less than ideal. I don't understand why they have such an aversion to Wikitext. I think that's easiest as all active editors are intimately familiar with it. Almost everything the developers in general try to pawn off as "easier" to use, I find to be more of a pain. But venue should be secondary to getting the issues raised, so if you want to start an idea lab thread, feel free. wbm1058 (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, I just realized that you can go to meta:Tech and then post your concerns there. The developers changed the interface all over the wikis. --George Ho (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see, meta:Tech#"Search for contributions" date range. So, let's let the latest bug fix settle in before we try using it again. That page seems like a good place for reporting issues with the Special:Contributions interface, as I hate to go to the trouble to submit a new bug report, only to find that one's already been submitted. wbm1058 (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The major bug is fixed. George Ho (talk) 06:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I complained about the new widget date-picking interface after futzing with it and not figuring out how to efficiently make it work to actually select a specific date range. I assumed that it was working as designed, and that I was just too dense to figure out the secret for making it work. So after this bug fix, which I see involves other developers than those designing the widgets (go figure, I don't exactly understand the bug report), I'm happy to report that the widget now works for me with minimal fuss. There's more than one way to skin this cat, so while this might not be my preferred way, I'm not going to fuss about it much if it works. wbm1058 (talk) 13:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@George Ho: FYI. After letting this settle in for several months, I'm still not satisfied with its behavior. I've entered a new Phabricator task. wbm1058 (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...please don't give up on us, yet. 😞 I know you're busy, and I'm not expecting you to devote a whole lot of time to this project, but your input is highly beneficial and I was hoping you would keep helping us work through some of the kinks when you can, especially regarding admin factors we know little to nothing about. What we're hoping to accomplish will focus primarily on clarification and consistency in our WP:Blocking policy with the ultimate goal being editor retention.Atsme📞📧 02:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've had some ideas about this on my back burner. Posting some relevant links here. wbm1058 (talk) 01:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Atsme: It's still on my to-do list, as is replying to your email! Eventually... I keep a lot of burners going on my giant stove, alas some I have to keep down low for a long time. But I let other ppl cook my Thanksgiving dinner ;) wbm1058 (talk) 01:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat related to this, i.e. the area of community health and dealing with behavioral issues, is Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log. Something I haven't really paid much attention to.
There's a helpful search box at the top of that page. "Enter a username into this box to check if they have been sanctioned." e.g.Hmm. DUE, BALANCE, NPOV, RS talk. Followup. More followup. I'll try to help resolve this if I can. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your fixes on Scheduled monuments in Mendip. I don't quite understand the code of what you are doing but if it is about the number of reference templates breaking the maximum size, would your fix work on Grade II* listed buildings in South Somerset where the last few references don't display - possibly for the same reason?— Rodtalk 08:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the changes you made to the hatnote on the Bill of rights article. I think it looks perfect! Rockstonetalk to me! 18:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How about a Wikipedia Editors' Bill of Rights? wbm1058 (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With the current situation with Fram, that sounds like a great idea. . Rockstonetalk to me! 19:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I noticed that you recently removed a large number of {{cleanup}} tags dating back over 10 years. As you noted, these tags were indeed stale, and didn't have reasons listed, but I would say that in most of those cases, the need for cleanup was completely obvious from a cursory glance at the rest of the article. As the blurb for the "Articles needing cleanup" category states: "If you're sure the article has been cleaned up, addressing any obvious flaws as well as any specific problems mentioned on the talk page, feel free to remove the tag. There's not much harm in leaving it on if you aren't certain what to do; the tag will alert someone else to come by later and check up on the article." I spend most of my time on wiki working through these articles trying to sort them out, and without those tags, the article are now "on the loose" in the wikipedia with no warning for readers of their poor quality or way of editors finding them to address their problems. Please bear in mind before deleting any more that editors do actually use these tags and categories. Cheers. Jdcooper (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
HiJdcooper, OK. Here are my relevant 34 edits. I removed a total of 31 {{cleanup}} tags. I did notice that several had been proposed for deletion, and I suppose by removing the tags I'm keeping them from someone else noticing them and putting a PROD tag on the top. Not sure why anyone would want to spend much time to cleanup up a page that was proposed for deletion. I did make a few obvious fixes, but feel free to review them, and if you restore the template and add a reason to it, please also update the date to the current month, which will clear them out of the back end of the queue. I also noticed that in the talk archives the possibility of using a bot to remove these tags had been discussed. But, I'll move on for now to resume working on my more usual tasks, and maybe check back in on this later. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but the problem is articles like Dick Brooks (magician) where the creator has now removed the PROD tag and a horrible mess of an article is left untagged. I've gone through and added more specific tags to the ones with obvious problems, but I feel like dumping them in the July 2019 cohort (though that is what I've done) will just leave them unloved for even longer. The reason I poke about in this area of the encyclopaedia is specifically to find the long-term worst articles. But there are always plenty more repositories of such articles, obviously! Have a nice day. Jdcooper (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re your edits to remove the list of shipwrecks in April 1917 from the template limit exceeded category, probably the easiest way is by replacing {{flagcountry|UKGBI|civil}} with [[File:Civil Ensign of the United Kingdom.svg|22px]] [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland|United Kingdom]]. This produces the same result visually. The UK civil flag is likely to be the most used in any shipwreck list at least until the 1950s, so changing the flag removes a large number of templates and guards against the list subsequently falling into the category again. AFAIK, no other shipwreck lists fall into the template limit exceeded category, but if you do come across any others, give me a shout and I'll fix the issue. Mjroots (talk) 07:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjroots: I don't know about that being the "easiest way". To unpack {{flagcountry}} I needed to make a series of three substitutions, which left behind a bunch of programming logic (#if and #ifeq statements) transcluded into the article (see my recent edits to List of shipwrecks in April 1917). It's not immediately clear whether making your suggested edit loses any of that embedded functionality, though it seems not. Whereas by simply bypassing a template shell that transcludes the output of a Lua module, I'm guaranteed not to lose any embedded functionality. I think the "best" solution would be to rewrite at least some of the template logic into a Lua module, and someday I'll get around to becoming more proficient with Lua so I can more readily do that.
But there's more than one way to get the job done. Feel free to revert my edits and solve the issue another way, if you feel that's better. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that there's often more than one way to get the job done. As I understand it, there is a finite number of templates that can be used in an article. Not sure of the number but being computer code it's probably a power of 2 (1,024, 2,048, 4,096 etc). Changing the flags in the way I described does remover a larg number of templates from the article. I'll not revert your changes as they had the desired effect, but I feel that the article is probably still very near the template limit. Should it fall into the category again, then we'll change the flags. Mjroots (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjroots: FYI. There are several technical limits. The limit this article hit was the Post-expand include size. Currently the article includes (transcludes) 2,007,669 bytes, and the limit is 2,097,152 bytes. So yes, it is still close to the limit. You can see this in Show preview, under "Parser profiling data" (help) – you may need to click on that if it isn't showing by default. wbm1058 (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now 2,044,834 of 2,097,152 bytes – wbm1058 (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And now it appears that four more shipwecks have been added to the list, transcluding {{coord}} rather than directly invoking the module. wbm1058 (talk) 14:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Redirects from incorrect disambiguation[edit]
mw.hook('LinkClassifier').add(function(linkClassifier){// Delete the "incorrect-title" codedeletelinkClassifier.cats['incorrect-title'];// Add the "linked-misspellings" and "linked-miscapitalisations" codes, with appropriate categories.linkClassifier.cats['linked-misspellings']=['Category:Redirects from misspellings'].sort();linkClassifier.cats['linked-miscapitalisations']=['Category:Redirects from miscapitalisations'].sort();});importScript('User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js');// Linkback: [[User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js]]
Hoping one day you make it to P.R. - Jose Valiente (radio MC) and bike shop owner's son- can hook you up- just need a translator. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wbm1058, I hope you are well. About this topic, did we get any further with this? I feel like it was a bit forgotten and archived, but I'd be very interested in continuing to find a full list of GANs by nominators. I'd love to help get something like this off the ground (I should be a little bit closer to the top 40 now, I've promoted another 30 or so since the discussion)! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 21:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Lee I lost momentum on this and let it drift to my back burners. I'll keep it on my to-do list and try to get back to it. Juggling a lot of balls, as usual, and as you can see from the sections above, new requests for my time keep coming in, making it harder to stay focused on more time-intensive projects. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not an issue. I thought about it earlier, and I didn't know if anyone was actively looking at it or not. I've also been busy, so haven't had much time for much! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 21:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wbm1058, you did some great work in listing GAs per user a while back. I wondered if you'd consider doing it again and/or doing it periodically? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski and The Rambling Man: – I'm running a new report now, using the last version of my PHP program from 26 July 2020. I started one last night, and it almost completed but died because the drive-by editor Sai5839448 put Category:Lists of good articles back into Category:Good articles, after I had previously removed it. A category is neither an article nor a Good Article. I removed the category and restarted my program from the beginning, and hopefully it will generate a report several hours from now. It will still have the inaccuracies I have yet to get around to addressing, but perhaps is "good enough" for your purposes. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is some great work! I was wondering why this credits me with 88, but I credit myself with 96, but then I realised it isn't including articles that went through GA and later became FAs. This seems like a sensible conclusion, but worth mentioning.
For me, the next point would be how we go from here, to a full list similar to user:GA bot/Stats lists reviews done by user. This would be with the view to have a bot maintain a full list similar to how Legobot does now. At least with a full list, we can identify the GAs with issue nominators, and come to a conclusion as to whom should be credited; and get a pseudo-definative list.
Once again though, fantastic work, I'm very happy to see this. I'll try my best to move up the order a bit! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 09:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
List of Wikipedians by good article nominations[edit]
@SD0001: no, I haven't done any more work on this since November. Go ahead and file your bot request. Maybe some time I'll try to improve my code to make the look-ups more efficient as you suggested so I can double-check your results. But I still have more tasks on my to-do list than time to do them all. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, in your opinion what's missing for the merge to go on? Is there anything that should be dealt with? Nehme1499 23:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I took some time off from this task to wait for any possible response to my work so far, and to catch up on my usual work queues. I'm back on this now. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to revert you on the template, but I've started a discussion on the talk page on what form of country name to use. Thanks for all the work you've been doing on this though. Cheers, Number57 22:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed your edit to User:Bamyers99/TemplateParametersTool. Wanted to let you know that the March parameter report is ready. There is a new link for the pos parameter called errors which takes you to the error list. --Bamyers99 (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Bamyers99, your tool is really nice. I have a question: why isn't Cheng Fung on that list? |pos=DF,MF isn't one of the four valid valures for {{{pos}}}. wbm1058 (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That page plus others were not displayed because of a bug. The bug has been fixed. --Bamyers99 (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! What a speedy fix it was too! You're the best! wbm1058 (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"This template provides a clickable icon flag with options to define the size, the link and the label. Its usage is especially recommended in articles with many icon flags. This project is under development." – Development seems to have stalled soon after it started.
Flagg – Is there a list of pages that are approaching the WP:PEIS limit that haven't converted over to the new module-based {{flagg}} system?
My work on this is on hold pending teaching myself more Lua and maybe JavaScript as well. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How can I help with - Should the template display the table in one or two columns?[edit]
Python, Flask, CSS developer here. Unemployed and would love to get my hands dirty and gain some more experience.
Would like to improve on the above, and learn more about JS and SQL. I also have an art background, so maybe illustration too.
Tamccullough (talk) 14:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
wbm1058 I'll look into this then - Wikipedia template coding - and see if I can be of any use at some point. Cheers! Tamccullough (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
...on potential improvements for WikiProject Articles for creation: What is missed? That's probably better answered by more-experienced AfCers, but one thing as an outsider admin I'd very much like is improved data on how drafts flow around the system. A log of all AfC submissions & reviews (accepts & declines); a log of individual reviewers' records (similar to the CSD log of NPPers); more clarity on the project's stats. ETA: I've just found Template:AFC statistics but it needs a proper historical log. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
As another "outsider admin", I'm interested in this too, and have the skills needed to create such a log. Adding this to my potential to-do list. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikimedia movement until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wbm1058! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk ~~~~~
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.
We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
thanks on this note. I wasn't sure if it was the script or my error. Let me know if I should revert my manual tag of the new page. Happy to, I just wasn't sure how to best record the AfD where future editors would look. StarMississippi 15:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and thanks for the pointer to the discussion. Will follow it as I seem to be more active in closing AfDs and wasn't aware of that page. StarMississippi 16:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Staffordshire Bull Terrier has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wbm1058, have you completed task 2 and no longer require +sysop to be set on this bot? — xaosfluxTalk 09:25, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My progress is documented at User talk:Merge bot/Task 2. While my most recent run was on 9 April 2021, this task is still on my to-do list and I expect to eventually get back to it. – wbm1058 (talk) 10:15, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaving two links here so that when you get time, you can look at possibly developing a BOT or a program that can provide the tools we need. WMF's development team created our curation tool but it took a long time. We are justifiably concerned about the backlog of unreviewed articles, and will probably never catch-up without some form of automation: NPP Feed, and ability to filter reviewed/unreviewed totals by category, date, etc.Atsme💬📧 13:31, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for your comment on Mammad Huseyn - it's an interesting quirk of the Page Curation Toolbar that it has a 'translate from other language tag' option but doesn't have a drop-down to specify the language. I'll go back and add it to pages in future. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This linked to the redirect. It should happen less often because of some changes ~two years ago, but my experience is that there is a chance of it linking to whatever the cursor is pointing at when I hit Return, rather than the first item in the list, which is usually what I want. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using WP:JCW/TYPO to find those. I don't usually bother flagging the correct forms since the typo forms are so seldom used. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a list of WP AJ-tagged typos/incorrect names/mispellings. Some may be incorrectly tagged, like needing a {{R from database entry}}or{{R from miscaps}} instead. Many/most are from missing/stray dots, or wrong plurals, or missing/stray commas. Others from bad abbreviations. Some are ambiguous too, like J. Phys could be for either J Phys and J. Phys.
Didn't realize the talk page didn't move. The complexity of that one was a little higher than normal thanks to the user making preemptive moves that were not advisable. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I actually did these manually... Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sorry, Sammi, I saw that you posted your close of the discussion using rmCloser and assumed that tool was used to move the page as well (I haven't actually used that tool myself). So now I will assume that you were caught by the issue described at T12814. Does this sound right to you? (1) you filled out the page-move form and "Move associated talk page" was checked when you clicked the "Move page" button. (2) You then saw the warning message: The destination page already exists. Do you want to delete it to make way for the move? (Check the edit history.) (3) You check the "Yes, delete the page" box while keeping the "Move associated talk page" checked as well, then you clicked the "Move page" button a second time. This time the software reports back that the page was successfully moved. (4) The software does not report that the talk page was not deleted and moved, despite your having checked both boxes to "delete the page" and "Move associated talk page" (the software did not show you a "delete the associated talk page" box to check). You need to move the talk page separately now (or you could have WP:G6 deleted the talk page before the move if you were an administrator). You didn't do that because you had assumed that the software would move both pages in a single move operation, as it implied that it would.
If that's what happened, that's OK. I see that you're just a young page mover. I'm kind of an "administrator's administrator" in that I patrol for articles with talk page redirects and I found those pages populating the category. I frequently find pages moved by experienced administrators also populating that category, and having to constantly clean these moves up is wearing. So I just dug up that old low-priority "feature request" for this "enhancement" dating from 2007, reminding me that if you want anything done around here, 90% of the time ya gotta do it yourself! Feel proud that you're the "straw that broke my back" and motivate me to finally become a MediaWiki developer. I've been spending hours and hours over the past several months finishing up these incomplete page moves, and have come to realize that the only way I can relieve the project of that task is to spend hours and hours (more likely several months) figuring out how to fix that bug. And yes, it's a bug not a feature! Regards, wbm1058 (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's correct. I would have had no idea that this behavior was the issue. Most of the reason I have pagemover is to handle complex US radio station call sign moves (WP:NCBC is unlike nearly every other naming convention guideline on enwiki). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Followup on my Windows 7 SSH keys: Resolving PuTTY conflicts was a real bear. PuTTY got me as far as a successful test SSH connection (don't blink or you'll miss the "Welcome to Gerrit Code Review" message), but I couldn't figure out how to make it work from Git. So I followed the video How to Install SSH in powershell and cmd (Windows 7,8,10), and installed OpenSSH, before I realized that Git already came with SSH as part of the package:
$ where ssh
C:\Program Files\Git\usr\bin\ssh.exe
C:\OpenSSH-Win64\ssh.exe
Sigh. Then I generated another SSH key and added it to my Gerrit settings. Now I have one key for PuTTY, and another for SSH, on my Windows 7 desktop. Next step:
FATAL ERROR: No supported authentication methods available (server sent: publickey)
fatal: Could not read from remote repository.
This troubleshooting guide led me to find the system environment variable GIT_SSH (with value: C:\Program Files\PuTTY\plink.exe). I renamed it to GIT_SSH_PUTTY. Next attempt:
Found the file C:\Users\Bill\.gitconfig and opened it with Notepad++ – that's where my user configuration is stored; everything looks in order
Edited the file C:\Program Files\Git\etc\ssh\ssh_config with Notepad++ as an administrator – changed Port 22 → Port 29418 – still no joy!
Edited the file C:\Program Files\Git\etc\gitconfig with Notepad++ as an administrator – removed the PuTTY-installed stuff at the bottom – finally, it worked!
Yay! I hope the Composer and git-review installations are easier! wbm1058 (talk) 02:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I figured out what's going on regarding the need for Composer (or not). The core folders I've downloaded from the official mw:Download page always come with a vendor folder (which is required to run MediaWiki), while the developer releases do not. In other words, the people preparing the official releases compose the vendor folder for the convenience of their end-users, while this service isn't provided for those who mw:Download from Git (the folder obtained via
OnSpecial:Diff/1197910664, I realised early on that Talk pages doesn't automatically get deleted. Although I do check for talk pages, I missed this somehow. One well-deserved trout slap for myself. – robertsky (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robertsky: right, see #Oops above. I should get back to working on that project. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should I change the section title to "Opps I did it again"? 🤔😁
Wow, I was actually thinking that a userscript might be sufficient. Something detects if the talk page isn't moved (as that information is given on the move page after the move), and then pulls out the edit history and current content (truncated, or nested iframe/noscroll small div, if need be) of the talk page for admins to evaluate to see if the target talk page can be deleted for or a pageswap is required instead. But hey, if there are already codes pending in gerrit, why not. – robertsky (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for tidying up after me there, Wbm1058. Just to clarify, when I originally moved the article back to that name, did its talk page not come with it automatically? ——Serial Number 54129 14:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you haven't appreciated, or perhaps not noticed, the huge amount of work I've been taking on from this report for the last year or so. When I had JWB rights, I handled entries with hundreds of incoming links, probably fixing more than a million over-capped places, and a fair number of under-capped ones as well. And I identified, reported, and asked for a fix to the Visual editor UI problem that causes so many of the pipings through under-capitalized redirects. Of course, seeing how useful this report is for tracking things that ought to be addressed, I also added a whole lot of R from miscapitalion label to redirects that came from consensus moves to lowercase, so sometimes the list grew more than it shrunk. Since losing JWB, I've concentrated on the entries with more than 1 but fewer than a dozen incoming links, which is why you see a bit of an odd distribution in that neighborhood, and an ever-growing list of ones with just 1 incoming link. There's just a bit of overhead on each line I take on, so it's not efficient to work on the singles. And the big multiples will be more efficiently worked with JWB, if/when I get that back or someone else wants to help. Sometimes it becomes clear that the best resolution is to change the tag back to R from other capitalization. Anyway, glad to hear you're not anti-me or anti-lowercase. Back to it... Dicklyon (talk) 00:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed another raft of these today. Dicklyon (talk) 03:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, if you see some where you think the R from miscapitalization tag is not quite right, feel free to change them. And if you let me know, I might work on trying to sort out which links really are wrongly capped and which are OK. Dicklyon (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, note that I had gotten the report down from 26 kB (or a peak of 34 kB in July) to about 6 kB in September, in the leadup to my Sept. 15 JWB restriction. Since then, it's been pretty flat, as I work more on lots of little items. I did about 134,000 edits in 2023, mostly working on items on this report. Dicklyon (talk) 04:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping, Randy Kryn. The trick is to edit the redirect change the {{R from other capitalisation}}to{{R from miscapitalisation}}. Maybe you can bring some balance to the area, if you and Dick can avoid fighting over what's Very Important and what's merely important. Wars and Revolutions in first-world countries tend to be Important, so they are capitalized, and we have many reliable sources backing that up. Whereas wars and revolutions in third–world hellholes, these unfortunately tend to be under-reported by the first-world press and are not considered to be as important. This can be a problem for Wikipedia, which endeavors for worldwide neutral coverage. I'd guess that the people living in those hellholes think their wars are Damn Important, the hell with what the first-world "mainstream press" thinks. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've only been uppercasing what's already Wikipedia-uppercased in the wars, revolution, ages, etc. (been chipping away at what's left of Age of Enlightenment lowercasings since leaving the above message). Dick and I fight (Corn Pop was a bad dude)? Never, we politely disagree. If we fought we'd have more than one mutual ban. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We fight politely, thank you, Randy. Most of the items marked R from miscapitalization are because someone decided, e.g. me after a move discussion, to mark them. I don't know why there are so many inappropriately lowercase redirects, but there are a ton, and mostly not marked. The trouble with their existence is that the visual editor provokes people to use them when linking, due to its stupid UI. So they show up in the report at a steady clip as that interface keeps tempting editors to pipe through them. There ought to be a way to automatically, via bot, fix all those that are just inappropriate lowercasings of proper names; that's a lot simpler than the other direction, deciding what needs to be capped more generally (e.g. the first letter of a descriptive-name link depending on whether it starts a sentence, heading, or list item vs. otherwise). Maybe we should put in a bot request; or you could easily learn to do them with JWB (with probably no chance of errors). We could maintain of whitelist of miscapitalized redirects to fix automatically, and/or define a class of things for a bot to figure out for itself. Let me know if you encounter complications that would make that harder. Dicklyon (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was reading elsewhere and saw that you dislike my efforts at RfA improvement. I welcome any feedback you have about my efforts about how you could see to improve RfA as considering all points of view and thoughts is important to me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: – Glad you asked. So I think the goal is to tone down the drama around RfA and to encourage more qualified editors to run. Towards that end:
Take the ability to block extended-confirmed users out of the standard toolset. Kick that upstairs to a new committee – the English Wikipedia chapter of Universal Code of Conduct enforcement. This committee will either be appointed by the Arbitration Committee in similar fashion as check-users, or elected – by either an RfA-style vote or an Arbcom-style secure-poll vote. Voila. You've just moved most of the RfA drama out of that process to this new process for staffing the UCoC enforcement committee. Oh, and no more Wikipedia:Contentious topics enforcement by ordinary administrators. Only members of the new conduct-enforcement committee will be allowed to impose "discretionary sanctions".
Make page-moving part of the toolset again. WP:Page mover rights have been a disaster for WP:Requested moves. I want to see more administrators closing requested moves, who have the tools to make technically optimal moves rather than swapping pages (the page-mover kludge). WP:Page mover rights should only be extended on a temporary basis, and expire after six months or a year, with no option for immediate renewal. Page movers should be considered to be on a track to becoming administrators. After working their page-mover "trial", their performance is evaluated to see whether they should be promoted to administrator. I'll be looking for editors who thoroughly clean up after their page moves, and who don't make bad moves that trigger errors which I then need to clean up.
Add a new "vandal blocker" temporary right, which, similar to page-mover, functions as an administrator training ground. Vandal-blockers will, for six months or a year, have the ability to block IP and non-auto confirmed editors. At the end of their trial, their blocking activity may then be evaluated, with an eye towards promoting the good ones to administrator.
Editors may serve either as a page-mover or a vandal-blocker, but not both at the same time. After an editor's page-mover term expires, they may opt to ask to be made a vandal-blocker, and vice-versa. Those who can't make the leap to administrator, for whatever reason, may perpetually flip between page-mover and vandal-blocker roles, for as long as they like, and are allowed to based on good performance.
What an interesting concept. Other than the somewhat out of scope idea idea of only having a "committee" that can enforce CT, I think this model is one that could change the tenor of conversation at RfA. I'm in general skeptical of devolving things further from the admin toolset - for the reasons you mention in Page Mover (though Page Mover is still granted to all admin) - but the prods you have put in place address them. Since some have decided we need major RfA reform, I hope you will find a way to put your proposals forward. It's some really fresh thinking. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Right, I suppose it is up to the Arbitration Committee, not the community, to decide who is allowed to help the Committee with arbitration enforcement. I suppose that was just an afterthought, and, perhaps a hint. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I[edit]
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:
Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:
Hi wbm1058 :) I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀(talk) 11:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Clovermoss: I appreciate the work you're doing on that. I may eventually get around to responding to your survey; my time is oversubscribed. wbm1058 (talk) 12:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, there's no rush. Feel free to participate whenever you want, I don't have a deadline or anything. Clovermoss🍀(talk) 17:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The info about Kendal being part of the actors company can be found in Gibson 1986 as cited in the body of the article. See also Ruling the Roost and Tis Pity She's a Whore at McKellen's site. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw that, after I reverted, also The Actors' Company. Feels odd to have an article about a company "inspired" by that, but not about the thing that inspired it. Feel free to add the info back, albeit with better citations and taking care not to make any more misspellings. :0 Thanks. wbm1058 (talk) 11:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C[edit]
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins[edit]
Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:
See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nominationbyvisiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching this one. Can you ping me again when you finish opening the merge discussion? Happy to throw in my +1. -- asilvering (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nominationbyvisiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a while! I saw your statement at the arbcom case request, especially this part: In the currently longest running RM, open a whopping 116 days and counting, I see two "Notes to closer", the second one pointing to two other discussions, one of which was endorsed, and one of which was overturned – both in favor of the naming convention that B2C supports. I read this as a not-too-subtle threat that any close that doesn't go his way will be taken to move review. A quick glance at that discussion, where the request has plenty of opposition, gives me the initial impression that it should close as no consensus, which would result in the page title remaining the same. But any potential closing administrator should realize that the next step will be another tendentious discussion at "move review", where the closing admin risks the embarrassment of watching their close get overturned.
I'm sorry you read it this way. It was not a threat at all, but rather just an FYI for any potential closer to be aware of what happened in those other cases, review them if they desire, and perhaps reflect on that in their closing. My thought was that someone who closed with the knowledge of what happened in those other cases might have more insight into the underlying issues than the same person would without reviewing those other cases. That's all. Although I did open one NCROY-related MR recently, others have opened all the others (some several), and while I won't open any more MRs myself, I fully expect others will. That's not a threat; it's a prediction.
I hope this clarifies my intent there. Thanks. --В²C☎ 18:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Dafing, that was clearly a mistake on my part. Regarding "Turkish military suicide", I moved the page because I thought that title was incorrect per AT. I have now removed the bolded text and copy-edited the article a bit. The single section heading was unnecessary since this is currently a stub. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Wesalius/model, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wesalius/model and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Wesalius/model during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. GTrang (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some day maybe I'll analyze the algorithm behind that, with the objective of improving it. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, reverted your edit at Botswanan, now it redirects to Motswana. A handful of sources call it Motswana singular with Batswana plural, and more. Botswanan is not a real formal word, and just because wikitonary says it exists does not mean it does. Should redirect to motswana [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]48JCL 01:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is what the page looked like before my revert. The image and some other things were broken by an IP user. I missed that you also made a non-breaking edit in the part that I reverted. Apologies for that.
– Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 05:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Module:Syrian Civil War map/testcases has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about a Wikipedia Editors' Bill of Rights? wbm1058 (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Wesalius/model, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wesalius/model and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Wesalius/model during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. GTrang (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect Tone (color theory) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 23 § Tone (color theory) until a consensus is reached. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
