User talk:Wbm1058/Archive 14

The redirect ˀ 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/2025 December 13 § ˀ until a consensus is reached. ~ oklopfer (💬) 14:02, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I removed Fort Nelson Park from Category:Redirects to former names @19:52, 30 August 2024. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Redirects from former names currently has 26,477 members. Redirecting from a former to a current name is the standard and normal process on Wikipedia.

Category:Redirects to former names currently has 315 members. These are outliers; they represent deviations from standard and normal Wikipedia process. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Several redirects were mis-categorized. I cleaned up Category:Redirects to former names over a week or two by correcting them, e.g. Stanford Research Institute on 12 September 2024.

This activity was prompted by my running into Fort Nelson Park just a week after closing the Twitter under Elon Musk discussion. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Wow

Thanks very much for your well-reasoned close and sage advice at the Twitter under Elon Musk discussion. I've rarely seen such a crazy timesink as that one... And it's also rare to see so many respected Wikipedians taking a position that seems divorced from reality and digging in on it. We'll see if your suggestion for a move of Twitter gains any traction. It would seem advisable per the age-old policy of WP:NAMECHANGES, but it seems some can't let go of the old name. If we can make it with old favourites such as Sears Tower and Hotmail we can probably do so with Twitter too!  — Amakuru (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Came here to say the same thing. Thank you so much for the detailed and thoughtful close. Hopefully this will settle things once and for all, at least for the time being. Not keen on the prospect of a 10th RM, as you suggested (I think you missed a couple: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and now 9; these are listed atTalk:Twitter#Old moves). InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Third-ing the thanks here; I was getting worried there weren't any uninvolved editors with both the experience and time/patience to take it on, and that it would just sit open forever. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 20:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

+1. I considered tackling it myself, but had an unexpectedly busy week so was not doing much CR work at all. Thank you Wbm, this was quite needed and helpful. I appreciate the difficult closes. Soni (talk) 06:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

		The Closer's Barnstar
		I wish to echo others' sentiments regarding the close; that needed to be done months ago, as you said. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 21:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

can you give me the star Amogelang22 (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with everything above. Thank you for the detailed close. Svampesky (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! A barnstar feels a lot nicer than accusations of "supervoting"! I also neglected "Twitter marks the spot" when I reviewed this, as somehow it had entirely slipped my mind. Though reading it again felt like I was reading it for the first time, I did recall having at least given it a glance because I remembered chuckling at "ex-CEO Musk"! wbm1058 (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Just an observation, ha! Another well-known company, besides X, still better known by its former name, is Constellis. What's that, you ask? Just click the link :0 wbm1058 (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

How did you run the Grok experiment that you ran here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Timeline_of_DOS_operating_systems#Grok:_Missing_Information

Cheers! Guz13 (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

@Guz13: I just added an explanatory introduction at Talk:Timeline of DOS operating systems#Grokipedia v0.1 – hope that clears it up for you. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I'll take a look, thanks. Guz13 (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I believe I understand. You made edit suggestions to Grok and then Grok updated the article based on the accuracy of your suggestions. Is this correct? Guz13 (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

@Guz13: No, sorry, you've got it backwards. Grok published those suggestions to improve their fork of my Wikipedia article, and then I updated my Wikipedia article after evaluating the validity of Grok's suggestions. I don't think Grok's creators really intended for me to do that – they didn't ask me to do it, that was my idea alone – I think they wanted to improve Grok's fork to make it better than the original. Grokipedia v0.2 seems to have made something of an adjustment in the techniques they're using to produce content. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:45, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay, interesting. Can this be done to find more information to improve our Wikipedia articles? Or was this a one time thing when they launched? Guz13 (talk) 02:52, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

It looks like maybe a one-time-thing with regard to this particular article. As for the rest, I don't know because I haven't taken the time to study it beyond that. I do envision future AI tools helping Wikipedia editors, but editors are already overwhelmed by "suggestions" and we also have an imbalance of what I call "executive editors" making "suggestions" versus laborers to implement suggestions. As AI evolves to help us we'll need to have a good balance of AI suggestions tools and AI tools that help implement suggestions. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:34, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

I just headed to the Athas redirect page and found that you deleted it. I headed there to change the target from Dark Sun#The world to the Athas (name) page as an ambiguous title. I will wait on this now so as not to block the page move if the request is successful. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 22:09, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, it's me again, being my wonderful self and trying to shake up the status quo. I'd appreciate your thoughts over at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)/Archive 13#Community-WMF relations. I want to hear about every long-standing technical issue you've ever faced and an estimate about the incredible amount of volunteer labour you've put into trying to keep things running smoothly. Thanks, Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Heya, I wasnted to ask what you meant in Special:Diff/1334321832? FaviFake (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@FaviFake: Per the edit summary on this diff:

(Merged content to Huwara rampage#Shooting, redirecting merged content from 2023 Huwara shooting following a merge proposal. For the full discussion which led to the merge, please see the articles' talk pages. Please see the source page's history for attribution. I didn't add additional content (just reorganised it), but the target section may need to be cleaned up. (easy-merge))

I was thinking that since you were using the easy-merge tool you had assumed that the tool had removed the merge template as well. Obviously it did not, as the template wasn't removed until I did it, while working through my bot's console report, which flags problems such as that. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! So I guess your mention of User:DaxServer/DiscussionCloser was a mistake.

I actually decided to always check since SD0001's tool often doesn't detect them, for some reason, but sometimes I forget, thanks for reminding me.

Is the bot's console accessible anywhere or is it private? FaviFake (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. Do you use the User:DaxServer/DiscussionCloser tool as well? I'm not sure where I got that from, but sometimes following rabbit trails on wiki can get very tricky when you're following moves & redirects.

The bot's console is private on my PC, but I could always publicly report things it flags to some page on-wiki. I might yet do that sometime. Though since the bot's source code is publicly posted, anyone could run that on their machine (with write to the wiki disabled) and see its output. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Do you use the User:DaxServer/DiscussionCloser tool as well?
Yup! FaviFake (talk) 17:25, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Categories you have created have 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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 January 25 § Articles currently being merged on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. FaviFake (talk) 08:06, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for catching those misplaced links.

I do note that the TV series appears to be a pretty clear primary topic and I'm surprised to see your move of the disambiguation page to the main title. What is your rationale here? 162 etc. (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@162 etc.: I didn't even look at the page views until just now, after you showed me the link above. My first consideration in determining primary topic is internal links, not page views. We want our content to have correct internal links.

As you could see from my recent pings, "Hello Tomorrow" (advertisement) was the primary topic based on internal links.

When looking at page views, please look at most all of the topics listed on the disambiguation, perhaps except for the most really, really obscure items.

"Hello Tomorrow" (advertisement) was the original primary topic when that ad was created in 2005.

The 2010 Hello Tomorrow (album) should probably have pulled the ad off of primary topic and forced a disambiguation shortly after it was released, but that never happened.

The 2023 premier of Hello Tomorrow! should have forced the issue, but, no, a couple more years passed before you created the disambiguation. Primary topics shouldn't switch overnight. There should be a transition period allowing for the former primary topic to have disambiguation of its links. You shouldn't skip that step. Skipping such details results in the system throwing flags that I patrol for. I'd rather see you do the disambiguation rather than leaving it for someone else (me) to clean up. After disambiguation has been completed during the transition period, then, if appropriate, the final step of moving to a new primary may be made, if there is a consensus primary topic. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

One more thing. I use WP:NAVPOPS to aid disambiguation. You can't do that when a primary topic has already been declared. NAVPOPs only helps when there is no primary topic. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I usually do update links when making such edits and somehow missed these five that you fixed today. Thank you for your continued contributions to the encyclopedia. 162 etc. (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@162 etc.: somehow you missed all of these too. Doing this work should be part of your standard due diligence when changing primary topics. Really the bar for determining primary topics shouldn't be all about what readers are more likely to search for, but what editors are likely to link to. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:49, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I'd argue that that one is probably on the RM closer, but again, thank you for making the encyclopedia better. 162 etc. (talk) 03:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Oddly enough, you're the editor who moved the page, implementing the "consensus", not the editor who closed the discussion. – wbm1058 (talk) 04:14, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Carlo Gesualdo, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Accademia was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:58, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerty123M. I noticed that you recently made an edit to 2024 election Turkey in which your edit summary did not appear to describe the change you made. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Qwerty123M (talk) 11:42, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Sigh, do I need to waste time explaining something so obvious? Apparently, I do. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:58, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I could have thought about the issue a bit more. It was not immediately obvious to me what you were trying to accomplish by removing the categories instead of using a more relevant one. Qwerty123M (talk) 12:40, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your note on adding 'cleanup' parameters - noted! New to reviewing, so thanks also for note on 'tag bombing'. I'm not sure what the correct amount of tags might be, but it seems this is too many? With thanks! Medievalfran (talk) 11:19, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi. Just warning you that your bot (RMCD bot) has malfunctioned. It had added the same message pop-up of proposed rename of "Proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery" to "Proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery by Paramount Skydance" on the mentioned article, for the second time, even while already having the message. One editor had reverted it but the bot reverted back. So i disabled your bot on that article. The P ^talk 08:34, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

What you should disable is stupid editing by drive-by unregistered editors messing with the template contents. – wbm1058 (talk) 09:42, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Business First (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is:

• a disambiguation page with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" which lists only one extant Wikipedia page (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• a disambiguation page that lists zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• a redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" whose target is neither a disambiguation page nor page that has a disambiguation-like function.

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a discussion at ANI involving you. I did not create it, but you were not notified properly. 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 ^{Peep peep!} 23:18, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Harumph. There was a 3–1 consensus to keep a "plausible" misspelling redirect, in order to actually encourage editors to conflate Allison StewartAllison Stewart, the Washington Post music critic, with Alison Stewart, the American journalist and author who first gained widespread visibility as a political correspondent for Music Television News in the 1990s. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:58, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

ok, but that doesnt match the title. Do you want to put in a move request so there is no edit war?Doug Weller talk 14:59, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

No, I don't want to submit a move request. The issues need to be addressed by editing the existing article; changing the title to Spanish isn't a thing I care to debate. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the move rationale used for Kerikeri Mission House, can I please point out that Heritage New Zealand is very bad at naming their entries? They often do not reflect a common name. Hence, it's no good using their naming conventions as a rationale for page moves. Schwede66 04:32, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

If you think Kerikeri Mission StationKerikeri Mission Station, or Kemp House, or Mission House (New Zealand)Mission House (New Zealand) would be a better title, I'd be OK with any of those. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:12, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

And now the page has moved by request to Kemp House. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Wbm1058. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Lists of Olympic competitors, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Is there a reason you deleted then undeleted Large-scale structure of the universe? It now shows up as unreviewed, i.e. a new page. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

To set up for WP:history merge. Content from 2010 and earlier had been sitting under the redirect at Large-scale structure of the CosmosLarge-scale structure of the Cosmos. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

"In the early days of Wikipedia, renamings took place manually, using cut and paste" LOL, this still happens frequently. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

OK. Ping me when you are done and I can mark it as NPP reviewed (no point in it not being). Ldm1954 (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@Ldm1954: I finished well before you messaged me here. This is obviously not a new page, more like a resurrected page, which had temporarily been merged to another article. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:32, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh, unsourced since 2008? That is embarrassing. So apologies for reverting your edit so quickly rather than fixing it myself. I have 10 tabs open right now, including an FARC and a GAN - I assumed it was some editor just removing it because they didn't care about the citation needed tag. Just as we sometimes have a problem with articles being incomplete or unsourced, we sometimes have issues with trolls and vandals. Just wanted to say hi really quickly. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:59, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Categories you have created have 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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 March 22 § Category:Pages with editnotices on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:14, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Wow, you proposed renaming 50 categories, which is ten more than the 40 categories I've created over my 15 years as an editor. Searching through those forty and your haystack, I found that Category:Pages with editnotice central redirected is the only edit-notice category I've ever created (on 26 November 2023). – wbm1058 (talk) 13:49, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

These are my edits related to that, which should give some insight into why I created that category. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

You are invited to participate in the Destubathon of the Americas, a contest/editathon which will run from May 1 to May 31. The goal is to destub as many of our 475,000+ stubs for the Americas (from Alaska down to Chile) as possible. A good chance to have fun in expanding many of our old stale stubs and win up to £2000 ($2680) in Amazon vouchers for expanding stub articles. Sign up in the Contestants/participants section on the contest page if interested. Even if not interested in prizes you are still warmly welcome to participate in it as an editathon! Hopefully we can achieve something significant in the month of May together! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:43, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, my time is oversubscribed, and I need to be preparing for the Wikimedia Hackathon 2026 I'm scheduled to attend at the end of this month. Maybe if so many geography-stubs hadn't been created in the first place by using automation to dump marginally-notable external database content into Wikipedia, we wouldn't have this problem. But happy to see you have nearly a hundred editor signups. Amazing what a little bit of £cash can do. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Regarding this reaction (over-reaction, to me), I have to say that nothing about my cleanup there has anything to do with anyone "being a jerk". I don't know where this personal animosity has come from, nor why you seemed to want to personalize a style & titles guideline dispute. That's the least productive course of action in that internal subject area, especially when there's actually nothing at all substantive in the disagreement (both versions direct the reading editor to the same instructions).

Probably more importantly, your claim that "anyone looking for advice about the first sentence at MOS:First will find absolutely nothing about this" [i.e. about lead sentences in articles on companies], simply isn't correct. MOS:FIRST clearly states: "If the article is about a company or organization, the first sentence should start with its full legal name, regardless of page title (see also MOS:FIRSTCORP)", leading precisely to the material you are trying to overemphasize at WP:NCCORP. (And your version of the NCCORP text had nothing to do with MOS:FIRST anyway.)

NCCORP is a page about titles only and it has no connection to body-content at all (which is what MOS is for), as I explained very clearly in my earlier edit (which didn't revert you, just redid what you were trying but to do in a more appropriate way). When we need to direct people from one sphere of guidance to another that is nevertheless still related in some sense, i.e. is something an editor reading that page is at least marginally likely to need (and your instinct that this is the case here seems to be correct), then that's what the "See also" section exists for at a guideline page.

Your blanket-revert behavior at the above diff also clobbered unrelated grammatical, etc., edits, which is rather unconstructive and incautious.

I'm going to just chalk this up to some kind of miscommunication, and not dwell on it further, unless there's actually something that needs further input from us. :-)
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:15, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Just noting my awareness of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 135 § Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation 2 – wbm1058 (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I noticed that you deleted and protected the page libtard a long time ago, but there exists a Wiktionary page on it. Could you please make the deleted article into a {{Wiktionary redirect}}? It's okay if you disagree with me. :D - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 21:34, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done – I wasn't keen on doing this, but after reviewing Category:Wikipedia protected soft redirects, and finding the similar title "Dotard" there, and looking at Talk:Dotard, I decided this was only the "fair & balanced" thing to do. I suppose anyone who doesn't like it can start a discussion at WP:RFD. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

There are a lot of tumbleweeds rolling over at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers... the last edit added a {{backlog}} template. Now that I'm an administrator, I've decided to focus on clearing the Wikipedia:WikiProject History Merge and Category:Possible cut-and-paste moves backlogs first. If Proposed mergers were busier, I'd make this a higher priority.

• Older discussions are at /Automating proposed mergers. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi wbm1058,

China, Taiwan, and the Sinosphere are not designated as contentious topics by the community and extended-confirmed protection is reserved for contentious pages. If there is disruptive editing, semi-protect the article for a while before making the big jump.

For guidelines, click here. SuperWikiaBros (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I answered your question at Talk:China (region)#Why extended-confirmed protected indefinitely? – wbm1058 (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

The redirect Shekel sack 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/2026 June 9 § Shekel sack until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 12:32, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

no consensus for block is not the best way I can think of to say "blocked too early in a CBAN discussion that's running strongly toward an indef". SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Administrators are allowed to block during a CBAN discussion and Sarek's post that you linked to in your unblock does not say there's no consensus for a block. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:58, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said no consensus at this time. I realize consensus may change in a matter of hours, or a day or two. My intention was not to link to a specific post, but rather to the entire discussion. I made the link a permalink so the discussion would easily be found from the block log, even after the discussion is archived. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. I don't agree with the original block as it wasn't urgent, but I think a CBAN is probably a foregone conclusion at this point. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:26, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

At least we've found out LS's response to being blocked before he's actually indeffed. Black Kite (talk) 19:32, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I just put larry sanger banned from wikipedia into Google's AI, and it told me "The blocking process faced brief internal turmoil. Wikipedia's fellow co-founder, Jimmy Wales, initially stepped in to defend Sanger and briefly unblocked his account." So now I have to start an SPI, obviously. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:28, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I operate under the radar. The LLM probably assumed, from my user name, that I was acting on Jimmy's behalf, as his secretary. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:37, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

AI views you as Jimbo's doppelgänger/spokesperson, so it must be true. Maybe someday you'll be featured in a Chloe vs History time-travel segment on Sangergate. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

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)

Hi Jdcooper, 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)

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)

This backlog still seems to be growing faster than it's getting cleared. Category:Articles needing cleanup from December 2008, which is where I was working in July, was deleted in October 2019, and I just coincidentally found that Category:Articles needing cleanup from January 2009 was ready for deletion. So this has been getting cleared at a rate substantially slower than one per month. On to February 2009. wbm1058 (talk) 05:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I just deleted Category:Articles needing cleanup from December 2010, after spending most of the day cleaning Hendersonville High School (Tennessee) § Notable alumni. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

And now Category:Articles needing cleanup from January 2011 is gone too, after Template:Alumni was recategorized. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:20, 14 July 2026 (UTC)