Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 30 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 3.

This page is for requests that can be resolved by editors with AutoWikiBrowser permissions.

Note: If the request involves changing URLs, notify WP:URLREQ for specialized bots designed to handle dead link templates, archive URLs, link verification etc.

See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Check Wikipedia.

Please retarget all incoming links to Tcl to Tcl (programming language) per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 9#Tcl. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:55, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts  Done Mainspace links retargeted, remaining stuff has either Template:Widget toolkits or Template:Web frameworks transcluded on them, and while the links in the templates were fixed I guess it is just taking a minute to update. SophisticatedeveningALT (talk) 07:24, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@SophisticatedeveningALT: not necessarily, for example List of programming languages#T contains a direct link to tcl. For more, see Search for insource:/\[\[[Tt]cl[\|\]]/. --CiaPan (talk) 08:30, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Actually just fixed that one, was combing through the ones that I missed now. Sophisticatedevening^(talk) 08:34, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you've fixed that one while I was testing some variants of the regex. CiaPan (talk) 08:39, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Sophisticatedevening: Do you think the parameter of {{complang}} in userboxes {{User tcl}}....{{User tcl-4}} should be replaced, too? --CiaPan (talk) 09:03, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, done. Sophisticatedevening^(talk) 09:10, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:44, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD was improperly bundled, so there are still tags on articles for the years 1954-2016. The talk pages need the following old afd tag added as well: {{Old afd |date=17 January 2025 |result='''speedy keep''' |page=2017 in German television}} Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:37, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts Partly done I removed the AfD templates from all the articles. I don't know how to add the templates to the talk page with JWB, but DreamRimmer did that last time so pinging. HurricaneZeta^C 02:51, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged. – DreamRimmer ■ 03:40, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The latest run of Special:WantedCategories features a mysterious Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages, with 245 user talk pages in it, that I can't figure out how it happened. That category was deleted in 2016 and has never been recreated since, and while I didn't check every page in it, the ones I did spotcheck have not been edited by anybody in at least a decade either to add this — and yet, the category seems to be directly declared on the pages rather than being transcluded by a template, so I can't fix this just by removing it from a template. I can't really understand how it even got there, because it wasn't newly added to any pages within the past three days, yet can't have been populated before the past three days because it would have shown up on the WantedCategories report if it had been.

It is worth noting that it's populated entirely by the talk pages of temporarily or permanently blocked former editors whose usernames specifically began with the letter W, if that helps anybody figure out what the honk happened here.

But since I'm not eager to gnome my way through 245 pages to remove this category via AWB, I wanted to ask if anybody else who takes on AWB requests is willing to get this category cleaned out. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, I saw someone else removing this category too. On User talk:Wacuco, it was added with this edit. Maybe it's something to do with the template? HurricaneZeta^C 16:49, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The clue might be in {{Uw-blockindef}} given that. HurricaneZeta^C 16:51, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done by someone else. HurricaneZeta^C 18:14, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I've finally figured out the culprit here. The pages in it were previously deleted, so the category was empty for a long time because its contents had been deleted — but in recent days an editor has undeleted many of them on the grounds of current WP:DELTALK rules, thus putting them back into the category because it did exist at the time of the original deletion. It also came back again today, this time populated with V usernames instead of W usernames — but it was a lot smaller this time so I just gnomed through it myself instead of soliciting help. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A bot has been set up to remove these categories from restored pages. There is a discussion about these ongoing user talk page restoration edits at VPT. The restorations are causing a variety of page errors to appear, including nonexistent templates and varieties of Linter errors that were eliminated from the English Wikipedia many years ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:12, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So it's come to my attention that many articles about Japanese places have text like "estimated population" mostly in their lead sections, largely thanks to being mass-created in 2003 and 2004, like this one. A link to the word "population" in that sort of context is massive overlinking these days, especially because the population article is about general biology and the Population (human biology) article doesn't really fit either (the link was probably borderline even then). I've removed a few, but per a random segment of what links here, there are hundreds or perhaps thousands of these. Please replace all instances of "[[population]]" with "population" in all articles that are recursively in the category Category:Populated places in Japan ... or at least that's how I'd think to attack it. Another way might be using what links to population or even making a list based on links to Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Districts and municipalities , as many talk pages with appropriate tags link to that page. Another minor issue would be what to do with links to "population density" in such articles; I'd say to leave them, as that's a more specialised term. I'll notify the project's talk page and the creator of these articles. Graham87 (talk) 03:44, 2 February 2026 (UTC) Oh, the population human biology article is really new. Courtesy ping its creator, @D6194c-1cc:. Graham87 (talk) 05:47, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So I've loaded a list of about 100,000 pages in the Japanese populated places category, and in the first 100, about a quarter have needed the replacement. This could be quite a task. I'd suggest asking at WP:BOTREQ instead. VanIsaac, GHTV ^contr_about 06:11, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there'll be quite as many as implied by that sample (but still a lot); This link count tool says there are 12,524 direct links in total, after I updated the navboxes. And there's not only Japan articles; there are also tables like, say, the one added in this edit by @Van00220: in which the population link unambiguously goes to the wrong place (for now), but what to do with them is less clear-cut (at least to me). Furthermore, I started a move request at Talk:Population#Requested move 2 February 2026 about what to do with the population articles. I'll provide a pointer here from the bot requests page, but I'm not exactly 100% sure what's best here in general ... yet. It's all quite a kerfuffle. Graham87 (talk) 08:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, total is 11,467, just need to filter that by the category you gave and see what the number is. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:01, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

At least 2300 pages, which definitely puts it in bot territory. Primefac (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps an AWB rule initially that will chip away at the list? Neils51 (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A rule over at WP:AWB/T would definitely help with this. But I think a two-pronged approach of a bot run first, then a typo rule later would be the ideal solution. That way we aren't waiting weeks or months for the majority of them to be fixed, and the remaining ones can be fixed as they're spotted. phuzion (talk) 12:16, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My bot is free, so please let me know if I can help with unlinking population on these 3,404 pages. – DreamRimmer ■ 15:33, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove all pages that are named "___ railway station" at Category:Zgorzelec County, as Category:Rail transport in Zgorzelec County now exists. Thanks, Fortek67 (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Quick and easy! phuzion (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Before I close this RfD, could someone please replace uses of {{Page links}} with {{Article links}}? Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:58, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done except on current user talk pages to avoid sending notifications and an arb case page that I don't know if I can edit. ​ HurricaneZeta^C 00:28, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

...and not on SPI archives since I triggered edit filters there. HurricaneZeta^C 00:30, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Toadspike, @Kevin: what's the protocol here for editing SPI archives and arbitration pages? voorts (talk/contributions) 00:45, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gnoming is one of the acceptable times to edit these sorts of pages. Primefac (talk) 11:43, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts@HurricaneZeta I'd say the same about SPI archives. We're usually very strict about not editing them (hence the edit filter), but gnoming should be okay. Toadspike [Talk] 08:29, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2026_February_19#Category:Companies_of_Turkey_by_year_of_establishment, we also found a necessity to merge to a new decade-level category scheme. However, we don't have such categories for any country in Category:Companies by country and year of establishment. I'd suggest preemptively creating decade- and century-level ones for every country and year that has a category for establishment or disestablishment of companies. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:32, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]