User talk:Steel1943/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Happy New Year, Steel1943!

Happy New Year!

Steel1943,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 00:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 00:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Cricket articles

Thanks. Despite being around for ages and ages I didn't realise that I could go down the speedy route for the redirects I'd identified. I'll take any others I find down that route.

As you're currently doing all the DENY stuff, can I ask you to take a look at List of English cricket people to 1787? This was moved to its current title in September, without discussion from List of English cricketers to 1771 and now overlaps with List of English cricketers (1772–1786). By the same sock. Because it's quite complex I was saving that for later, but if you're in a position to move it back over the redirect then I'll tidy up everything behind that. No worries if that's not possible just now. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• @Blue Square Thing: Done, I believe. Steel1943 (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• • Thank you. I'll get on tidying it up today. There will probably be a few other moves that might need attention, but we'll get to those at some point. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:17, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Deleting your comment

Sorry if the deletion seemed rude at Talk:Smartphone zombie, that wasn't the intention, appreciated you making the correction that I'd missed. I just wanted to spare every visiting RM editor from having to read through an extra paragraph of me overexplaining something that wasn't relevant any more. Belbury (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@Belbury: I know it wasn't your intention to be rude, but yeah, WP:TPO is pretty strict. There's another solution for this that will probably work for both of us ... one moment ... Steel1943 (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@Belbury: See edit. Steel1943 (talk) 18:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Looks like Wikipedia:Mutual withdrawal might be a simpler option? I hereby give you permission to erase my comment! But if you prefer to have the record kept, that's fair enough. Belbury (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@Belbury: I've been editing regularly for over a decade, and I had no idea that essay existed. I consent to that, and I'll take care of it. Steel1943 (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

A new one to me as well, turns out it was only written last year. Thanks for tolerating my persistence! Belbury (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

thanks for starting the rm for me, i'm fairly new to wiki-ing

anything else i should know about this procedurally DarmaniLink (talk) 18:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@DarmaniLink: I'd consider editing your comment a bit so that it reads like a move proposal rather than you stating you are going to move the page. Other than that, everything else has now been done. Steel1943 (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

alright, thanks DarmaniLink (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

IPs can close discussions

Steel, how you found what upcomings that are no longer upcoming? Also, it's the first time I closed a discussion and moved it to the talk page. That discussion is actually a wrong forum, which is a page move request. 176.88.82.7 (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Steel, they are added to "Upcoming no longer upcoming" section by me

No, do not revert. They are all my deletion suggestions, and I'm your helper. 176.88.82.7 (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

READ MY COMMENT ON YOUR PAGE. MY CAPS IS INTENTIONAL AS YOU ARE PISSING ME OFF. Steel1943 (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

"Garuda (upcoming film)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Garuda (upcoming film) 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/2023 March 3 § Garuda (upcoming film) until a consensus is reached. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

RM template

Does the RM template actually break if the numbers are non-sequential? I was initially cleaning that up but appeared to be functioning fine - if it was only appearing to, I'll make sure to fix that in the future. BilledMammal (talk) 07:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• @BilledMammal: To answer your question: Yes. See this edit, which was performed by a bot on the RM discussion list page after I fixed the nomination template. Steel1943 (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Thank you BilledMammal (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

"Cheese & onion" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Cheese & onion 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/2023 March 20 § Cheese and Onion until a consensus is reached. Thryduulf (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Contested move

A contested move on which you commented at WP:RM/TR has been transferred to Talk:Pinocchio (Soundtrack from the Netflix Film)#Requested move 27 March 2023. - Station1 (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

"Template:G14" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Template:G14 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/2023 April 8 § Template:G14 until a consensus is reached. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Deleting link templates

Hi there! I'm nominating a few or many templates you have created that produce many internal links. You can find it's entry here. I invite you to discuss the nomination there. SWinxy (talk) 05:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Gru (disambiguation)

Can't we/I just link Despicable Me in the page? ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• No since Gru exists: There can be only one blue like per line. Steel1943 (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Personal attacks from C. A. Russell. Thank you. Randi Moth ^Talk_Contribs 11:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your work!

Just wanted to pop by and give some encouragement and thanks. You are very obviously a skilled and dedicated Wikipedia contributor and not a robot. I appreciate you! Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 16:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2023

Is Kirk Thornton technically an actor? Because he is just a voice actor. ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what you are taking about since you did not link any articles, but most likely, WP:PRECISE is relevant. Steel1943 (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The Game

please check my last edit on that page if I gave correct info ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 07:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Accidentally deleted your RfD section

Hello, I deleted your Leave Entitlement section from today's RfD in this edit. I tried to fix it here after an hour. I think it's fine, but since I didn't notice deleting it in the first place maybe you could double-check.

No idea what happened, but I'm guessing some bug wrt to those subsection edit links. I'll be less trusting of them in the future. ― Synpath 22:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

BLAR and redirect stuff

See @Sergecross73 rationale then [1]. It is fine to bold redirect or merge articles that arent notable. Also, whats with that "and please stop WP:BLARing articles as you have already been warned multiple times to stop doing this", I mean I have been warned only once by you and Haleth about Blaring GA articles, but this one isn't GA at all. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 04:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, if we're talking about something like this, and you just object a specific instance of it because of a particular article's stance, then that's fine. But you can't ask an editor to stop making WP:BOLD edits, no. There are times where specific editors are deemed disruptive if their judgement calls are consistently against standards and overturned/rejected, but I can generally anecdotally say that GreenishPickle is acting in good faith and has a relatively good track record at AFD and in merge discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 12:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Greenish Pickle!: Incorrect, I warned you about BLARs in general with a one-sentence mention of GA ([2]). And here's another instance of another editor reverting your BLARs in the past week: [3]. (There's I think at least 2 more I've seen in the last month, which is unfortunate since I asked you to lay off the BLARs a month ago, but the amount of effort I care to put into this at the present time is limited to requesting that you to review your article-space edits during the last month.) Bottom line is, I disagreed with the BLAR, so WP:BRD applies, and your next venue is WP:AFD. You've been warned by multiple editors on either your talk page, or reverting your BLARs, on how you doing these BLARs are bad. I've been considering starting a community discussion to ban you from BLARs, but now that I'm getting ganged up on by another editor on this (Sergecross73), it's a stick I'm probably dropping since I stay out of time-consuming drama on Wikipedia these days (if I see there a clear chance that I would need to participate in the discussion more than posting just one comment). As much as I enjoy editing Wikipedia, real life trumps this crap any day. Steel1943 (talk) 15:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I am not trying to "gang up on you", I'm just explaining it you, largely because another experienced editor recently seemed to suggest there's something wrong with BLARing too, which is a fine personal philosophy, but not a viewpoint you can push upon others because WP:BOLD clearly supports it. (But as you say, BOLD supports doing it once. BRD says it shouldn't happen multiple times in the same article.)

I do partially understand your frustrations- I believe the community is getting burned out on all these character merge discussions. But as long as the majority are closing as merge/redirect/delete, I doubt any community sanction would be successful. Sergecross73 msg me 15:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Agreed, my apologies for the way I worded that. What I meant was that now that I see another side of this argument, I'm probably not going to pursue my preferred course of action because the resolution I believe needs to occur is not clearly uncontroversial. Steel1943 (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying. Makes sense. Sergecross73 msg me 16:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

"It's a stick I'm probably dropping since I stay out of time-consuming drama." What a little bit dramatic but ok. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 16:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Please don't unnecessarily provoke. Sergecross73 msg me 16:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

MOS:LAYOUT

Hi! In regard to Aberdeen Angus, do please actually read the MOS page you're citing. The relevant section is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Links to sister projects, which reads (in part) "If the article has no "External links" section, then place sister links at the top of the last section in the article. More precisely, box-type templates ( ... ) have to be put at the beginning of the last section of the article (which is not necessarily the "External links" section) so that boxes will appear next to, rather than below, the list items. Do not make a section whose sole content is box-type templates". Sister-project links are not not considered to be WP:EL. Would you you be kind enough to revert your mistaken revert? Not that it really matters, except for the accessibility problem of the refs in excessively narrow columns. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: Compromise edit incoming as I don't agree with the notion that sister project links are not external links ... since they are. In addition, the "...-inline" templates are not "box-type" templates ... notice that I used a different template than the "box-type template". ({{Commonscat}} vs {{Commonscat-inline}}.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: [4]. Steel1943 (talk) 19:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

...And wow, I don't agree with the wording of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Links to sister projects, given it makes more sense (to me) to do it the way I did. Possible discussion coming soon, provided such a discussion is not a perennial discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Wowwie, reading that section, it has a bit of contradicting instruction creep ... hope to fix that. Steel1943 (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: FWIW, I just reviewed WP:EL, and I cannot find anything specific there stating links to sister projects are not external links: The only Wikimedia-related mention on that page states that "non-English Wikipedia" links are not considered external links. Am I missing something? Steel1943 (talk) 21:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, I think it can be inferred from the statement that an External links section should not be created solely for them. I just can't see the point of creating such a section (which functions effectively as a spam magnet) when there's no need – Occam's Razor seems to apply. You might note that the box-type link had been in the article without any problem for just over fourteen years when you changed it the day before yesterday. Yes, I agree that the guidance is not clear, and possibly also not needed, but I don't think that's the most urgent problem facing the project at the moment. Thanks for the other change you made. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

New Page Patrol

Hey Steel1943, hope you're doing well. I wanted to reach out to see if you'd have any interest in rejoining the New Page Patrol team. I see that you have 2,000+ patrols and that your permission was procedurally removed after a year of inactivity. You're one of the most active editors at WP:RFD, and I could definitely use some help with the redirect backlog that's been piling up. I think your expertise in redirects would be a great asset but I completely understand if you're not interested in taking on anything more at this point in time. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: I appreciate you reaching out to me regarding some of the work that you do here on Wikipedia, in addition to asking me if I would be interested in joining your efforts. As you noticed, I lost a lot of my privileges due to having over a year of inactivity back in 2021; At this point, I have requested all of the privileges that I have any plans on utilizing at any point in the future. (I also had the file mover privilege, but have not asked to restore that privilege because I just have not been active there since I returned back to editing; I had previously monitored the file upload log.) Long story short, after all that has happened over the past few years on and off Wikipedia, I don't have the amount of time to dedicate to Wikipedia as I used to, and I kind of just do what I want here and there in spurts, and then take sporadic breaks. I'll keep this in mind though if I ever feel like getting more involved. Steel1943 (talk) 20:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for editing the OP Article!!

		The Anime Barnstar
		Enjoy this special ANIME Barnstar! Babysharkboss2 was here!! 17:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Invitation to Cornell study on Wikipedia discussions

Hello Steel1943,

I’m reaching out as part of a Cornell University academic study investigating the potential for user-facing tools to help improve discussion quality within Wikipedia discussion spaces (such as talk pages, noticeboards, etc.). We chose to reach out to you because you have been highly active on various discussion pages.

The study centers around a prototype tool, ConvoWizard, which is designed to warn Wikipedia editors when a discussion they are replying to is getting tense and at risk of derailing into personal attacks or incivility. More information about ConvoWizard and the study can be found at our research project page on meta-wiki.

If this sounds like it might be interesting to you, you can use this link to sign up and install ConvoWizard. Of course, if you are not interested, feel free to ignore this message.

If you have any questions or thoughts about the study, our team is happy to discuss! You may direct such comments to me or to my collaborator, Cristian_at_CornellNLP.

Thank you for your consideration.

--- Jonathan at CornellNLP (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Ballad for Americans (album)

Could you please move "Ballad for Americans (album)" back to "Ballad for Americans (Bing Crosby album)"? You thought that was "unnecessary disambiguation". But it was Paul Robeson who originally released the cantata as an album (a two-record set) and I think his version is more famous. (There's no article about that original album yet.) And redirect "Ballad for Americans (album)" to simply "Ballad for Americans". --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:06, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

@Moscow Connection: I made that move 7 years ago, so no. You will need to use the WP:RM process. Also, see WP:ALBUMDAB. Steel1943 (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

It's just that I thought you were an admin. (I see now, I'll just have to create an article about the Paul Robeson album.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:RFD work

	Washing dirty redirects
	Thanks for wringing out every WP:RDAB violation from the filthy, forgotten corners of the 2005-era Wikipedia. (Roundish ✡t) 00:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

"Berry picking" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Berry picking 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/2023 November 28 § Berry picking until a consensus is reached. Indefatigable (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Monotypic taxa

Just to note that as per the two pages linked from Wikipedia:MONOTYPICTAXA, articles about a species which is the only one in its genus, as is the case with × Tripleurocota sulfurea, are at the genus (unless this needs to be disambiguated). Peter coxhead (talk) 10:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: Could you please provide to me linked names of the article(s) I moved which contradicted these guidelines? (Unfortunately, I've done more edits lately than I usually do in such a period of time, so I recall what you are referring, but not specifically.) Either way, IMO, it's a bit odd that an article is titled with its parent subject rather than itself per WP:CONCISE, so ... any chance you may know the discussion(s) which resulted in a guideline that possibly goes against WP:CONCISE? (I mean, I'm no stranger to titling and disambiguation guidelines that go against WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE, considering WP:ALBUMDAB and WP:SONGDAB, so I know it happens ... I'm just curious how it happened.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: Never mind about the list of articles as I see you have reverted my move(s). However, just curious: Do you know of any location where there might have been discussion that led to the consensus I referenced above? Steel1943 (talk) 06:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

It's a very long-standing convention across the tree of life wikiprojects, and seems to have been in place before the naming conventions guidance was split between fauna and flora, so I'm not sure where it was originally discussed; I would assume there's material in the archives of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life. I've never known any other convention since I started editing seriously around 2010.

You wrote "it's a bit odd that an article is titled with its parent subject rather than itself", but this isn't the case. If a genus has only one species, then if there is an article on the genus and an article on the species there's really nothing different to say in each one. Having one article with a redirect avoids duplication of content and consequent redundancy. For a monospecific genus, the genus name and the species name refer to exactly the same set of organisms, so there's no problem with WP:PRECISE. As for WP:CONCISE, the genus name is more concise than the species name, so once it's decided to have only one article, it seems to me that the genus name is the more obvious choice. But it is to some degree arbitrary which name is chosen, and other language wikis have made different choices.

Peter coxhead (talk) 07:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: Regarding "If a genus has only one species, then if there is an article on the genus and an article on the species there's really nothing different to say in each one.: What I mean by that is ... at some point during some edits I have recently been performing, I found an article titled the genus but the article in its entirety described the species, which I found odd. I mean, in that case, I would believe the genus subject would have WP:REDLINK potential since it is/was not identified anywhere other than a brief mention on an article with the genus as a title, but the article is only about its only species. Meh, this policy of ours can potential cause article connection issues on Wikidata since it could lead to Wikidata claiming an article about the genus on one Wikipedia discusses the same subject of another article on another Wikipedia, but that article is about the species. (I know the English Wikipedia tends to give local policy over fixing Wikidata issues, and I could have sworn that was written somewhere in the project space, so it is what it is.) Long story short, I've been editing regularly since about 2012, and ... this is the first time I can recall running into needing to know this article titling policy at any point during my time here ... which is a bit of a surprise for me since a good portion of the edits I do on here tend to be regarding titling articles per WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE in terms of disambiguation (besides my regular WP:RFD participation ... and whatever other redundant fixes I find that several articles tend to need.) Anyways, that's all I got for now, so ... as they say: Cheers! Steel1943 (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

There's some discussion of the Wikidata issue at User:Peter coxhead/Wikidata issues#Monotypic taxa. As noted there, it's worse than genus/species issues for more complex monotypic taxa, because, for example, the general policy on the Spanish wikipedia is one article at the highest level, on the Italian wikipedia one article at the lowest level, and on the French wikipedia one article at each level except the genus. I regard the problem as being with Wikidata: it is supposed to model the external world as it is. The policy of only allowing 1:1 links manifestly fails to represent reality. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

...I've been dealing with that Wikidata redirect linking issue for over 10 years, around the time Wikidata first went live. Now, yeah, Wikidata allows linking redirects, but only if the title is not a redirect when it is linked in Wikidata. I don't have the resources to figure out where on Wikidata this may be stated, but linking redirects directly through Wikidata links to the redirect's target instead. Annoying, but ... after discovering the initial failure to allow linking redirects over a decade ago, the fact that a workaround in Wikidata still needs to occur to link a redirect is frustrating. But, eh ... it is what it is. Steel1943 (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually, you can link directly to a title that is a redirect. When you add the link, a little icon comes up next to the title you're adding (when you hover, the text "Click to assign a badge" appears – "badge" is very odd here to me). Clicking on the icon you can choose "intentional sitelink to redirect". I'm not sure how long this has been allowed – I found it by accident. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Joyous Season

I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. Cremastra (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Coffee/Holidays}} to your fellow editors' talk pages.

Cremastra (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Minor barnstar
	Replying to all your RfDs (that all had the same problem) made me lose a million brain cells. Anyway, how do you even log that many redirects in a day? The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 22:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@The Corvette ZR1: I used to do bundled nominations, and people complained. I then split them up, and then people complain. Since there is really no third option, guess people will just complain. 😂 Steel1943 (talk) 23:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

It turns out, complaining is as addictive as beer. Also, you should tell them that complaining is literally killing them. Sadly, I'm pretty sure these don't meet RS, so... umm... uhh... idk, my brain is dead lol. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 23:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Merry Christmas, Steel1943! Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 TT me 15:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

	Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!
	WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing, InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:12, 25 December

InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:12, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Redirects that don't have a space before the disambiguation searchable

Hey, not sure if you know this, but I've found intitle:/a\(/ (example; replace the letter to find more) which is useful to find redirects that don't have a space before the disambiguation. Gonnym (talk) 11:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Gonnym: Look at the hidden text at the bottom of my user page... Been tweaking regexes for a bit to avoid false positives. 😉 Steel1943 (talk) 13:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Hidden text! Gonnym (talk) 13:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Gonnym: Eh, my regex setups would not have found Tropical Storm Verna(1945) since my regexes are set up to ignore malformed "disambiguators" with the first character being a number, due to the high potential to return false positive results for valid chemistry-related redirects that have parentheses, dashes, and numbers at almost random locations. Steel1943 (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Gonnym: Just created a regex for years. The search contained a very small amount of false positives (and may return different results every time it is used since the complicated regex makes the search function time out), but most seem like valid WP:RDAB issues. Steel1943 (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Ways to improve Brother's Keeper (2021 film)

Hello, Steel1943,

Thank you for creating Brother's Keeper (2021 film).

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Hi Steel1943. The article as it stands is borderline for meeting WP:NFILM and would really need to be expanded with additional WP:RS sources to demonstrate notability. It would benefit from an explanation of the plot, and the addition of a 'Reception' section. It would also benefit from addition to relevant Wikiprojects.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bastun}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@Bastun: This is a automated tool notification failure since I created the title as a redirect and I did not create any of the content on the page: The editor who did that was Inwind. Steel1943 (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, I do not use the Page Curation tool, but if the tool allows custom notifications and you wrote that notification, you may want to look at the page's edit history next time to ensure the correct editor is named and the notification goes to them instead. Thanks. Steel1943 (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, yes, the tool identifies the 'page creator', I should have checked. My bad! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Redirect disambiguation errors

Hey Steel! Thank you for your nominations at RfD by the way. I've been curious for a while if you've been working off of a list (from Quarry or somewhere else) in order to identify the redirects that make errors in disambiguation. I've ran a few tests of my own and found a slew of pages with disambiguation errors, although I haven't really bitten deeper into that chunk for a few reasons, mainly because my focus has been elsewhere and I wanted to confer alongside your efforts. I guess the main thing I'm wondering is if you've been working off a list, and/or how far through are you those nominations, and/or what criteria have you been using to make the list? Thanks, Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh wait... I can't believe I didn't see the other section two above this that I should've tacked onto, LOL. That does answer some of my questions, I haven't checked the regex yet. A lot of what I was looking into was missing or extra parentheses and how often those come up (there's a few hundred or so) but I wanted to see how likely it was that we'd be running into the same problematic redirects. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

By the way, I was investigating this around when I sent this message, but I thought you might want to take a look at this massviews of Foo(bar) redirects: [5]. The query it's based on, ([6]) isn't a perfect catch-all by any means, as there's plenty of chemistry redirects which validly lack a space, and show up in this report because of it. But by looking at the viewcounts, most of the chemicals float to the top of the list view-wise (not all though). I saw looked into the regex you used in your searches, which is what I adapted for this query, but instead was looking at lowercase letters instead of numbers in the disambiguators. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 18:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Utopes: I'll take a look at that Quarry inquiry ... beats having to reload my regex every time the search times out. (I used Quarry like once in the past, but couldn't really figure it out ... but since my real life time to dedicate to Wikipedia has been rather sporadic lately, the list of entries I get prior to the query timing out on search is usually all I have time for whenever I run the regex search.) Steel1943 (talk) 06:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good if you do; for disclosure, I might also start chipping away at some of the redirects listed there in a little while. Although, I'm (quite surprisingly) trying to space out my nominations so I'm not just going all in for a singular category at RfD. As an example, I don't think I'm going to do any more RDAB nominations for a while as I'm waiting for my current few to simmer and conclude, and am instead putting my attention on the backend of the NPP queue instead. A strategy I've been thinking about is to bundle all of the redirects that are exactly of the form Foo(song), of which there's 129 (per [7], but who said it was going to be easy 😅). Similarly there's 172 that are exactly like Foo(film), another common occurrence. We'll see how the next few weeks play out. Hope real life is going well though! Feel free to take it easy, there's no deadline by any means ^^ 😌 Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of E129 (disambiguation)

The article E129 (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Invalid and unnecessary disambiguation page containing the primary topic and only one other topic.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about the script not working for "List of atheists, agnostics and other nontheists "

Searching it on wikipedia counts it as an article and not a redirect due to its status as rfD. -1ctinus📝🗨 11:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• @1ctinus: I know, thus why I was stating you need to check your edits and/or scripts since all edits, correct or erroneous, are the responsibility of the editor who made them. (Odd that I couldn't find a shortcut to a policy explaining that, but it's true.) Steel1943 (talk) 14:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

"Template:R from subtitle" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Template:R from subtitle 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 March 4 § Template:R from subtitle until a consensus is reached. ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 09:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Adult fiction

Re your revert, Steel1943. A merge had been completed by me sometime ago. An article on Adult fiction would duplicate most of the already existing [[Fiction]] article. I have now added a sentence to the lede of that article, and am considering whether more is needed. I probably should have done this at the time of the merging! Sorry. Rwood128 (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Rwood128: Not sure if you saw that I reverted my revert. Long story short, your subsequent edits to Fiction resolved the concerns I had with Adult fiction going back to being a redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Rwood128 (talk) 10:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Barnstar time!

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		Seriously, I know you're not my official mentor or anything but with how much you've helped me out... Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 02:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• Also, I was WONDERING why the Prince logo wasn't showing up last night. I'd copied over the code from the Prince (musician) page, and when it worked right after the edit, just thought of it as 'done'. Thank you for helping un-nonsense-ify my post lol Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 02:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Lunamann: No problem! I figure ... I can tell you are trying your best to get the hang of things around here, as I did many years ago. Also, I saw something on some page about you describing something as turning it into a blank slate or something ... so, yeah, we have a page/shortcut for that as well: WP:TNT. (Go figure, huh? 😂) Steel1943 (talk) 03:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Steel1943: That would be, if I remember correctly... yup, My comment on the discussion for Nooalf. Thank you again lol! Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 07:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I retargeted Candidates for the first novel

Hello Steel1943, I'm not sure of the etiquette here but I saw the closed RfD for Candidates for the first novel and I thought List of claimed first novels in English was almost certainly the information someone would be looking for with that query (as opposed to Novel#Early novels). I changed the redirect myself, which I think is a find "bold" edit but I wanted to let you know in case you disagreed or in case there is a process I should follow in the context of RfD which I am not aware. Thanks for your cleanup work! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@LEvalyn: Only thing I really have to do to avoid huge amounts of controversy is ask the other participant in that discussion ... @Johnbod: Do you have a problem with the change? Steel1943 (talk) 23:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

No, that's much better. I'd never seen that. Hang on - that only covers novels in English, whereas the other went to ancient & later novels. So I still prefer Novel#Early novels. Johnbod (talk) 04:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@LEvalyn and Johnbod: Due to the above potential disagreement and since the redirect has been edited and reverted since my close, I have reopened the discussion and relisted it at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 9#Candidates for the first novel. Steel1943 (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for relisting, Steel1943, that was the right call -- I had assumed the original choice was made without an awareness of Candidates for the first novel as an option but it looks like consensus is still clearly to stick with Novel#Early novels. It was good to have more discussion. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

RfD

You can always let me know if you want this discussion to be reopened. Okmrman (talk) 18:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

"King Dede" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect King Dede 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 April 25 § King Dede until a consensus is reached. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

BFD

Hi! Can I ask why you created the shortcut WP:BFD, which points to MFD? Not looking to blame you for anything, just not sure what it stands for. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@HouseBlaster: Wikipedia:Books for deletion. May want to consider bundling both at WP:RFD. (Heck, turns out I created both; I'm uncertain of their historical utility though, so I'm not going to tag them for {{Db-g7}}.) Steel1943 (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Tagging Talk pages for speedy deletion

Hello, Steel1943,

It feels like years since we interacted last. I just want to say that there is no need to tag a talk page for CSD if the article/redirect page is already tagged for speedy deletion. Many admins use Twinkle which deletes them both at the same time and there is no reason to delete the Talk page before the main page. It can look misleading if an editor or admin is glancing at CSD categories to have existing Talk pages tagged as if they are orphaned Talk pages which they are not at the time of tagging. Basically, tagging the main Article/Redirect/Template/Category page is sufficient to ensure that the Talk page is also deleted. Thank you for all of your contributions to the Project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: Yes, it has been a good while! I hope all has been well. Anywho, to the method behind my madness:

• At the present time, {{Db-x3}} is not built into Twinkle. I keep track of my CSD tagging with Twinkle's CSD logging option, which does not function if the template is not built into Twinkle. At the present time for this specific application, the only option to update the CSD log is to tag the talk page, provided it exists.
• {{Db-talk}}, an extension of WP:G8 (as you are aware), has one line of verbiage in its automated message which is missing regarding the use of the template, specifically the following:

  "... for talk pages of ... pages currently flagged for speedy deletion"

  ...meaning the double tagging is both allowed and apparently proper. (Maybe this verbiage needs to be added to the {{Db-talk}} template?)
• I know this doesn't apply to you, but I've run across several instances over the years where an admin will delete a non-talk page, but then for some reason I guess, inadvertently uncheck the option to also delete the respective talk page. In cases like this, which do occur, having the talk page tagged as well allows someone to "admin the admin" if the initial admin does not delete the talk page. (I get there are some talk pages tagged with {{G8-exempt}}, but running across those do not happen very often.)

...Anywho, that's my take on why I'm doing this, and ... I think my thought about adding the "... for talk pages of ... pages currently flagged for speedy deletion" verbiage to {{Db-talk}} may need some consideration to avoid such a disconnect happening again in the future. Steel1943 (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

"----" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect ---- 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 May 30 § ---- until a consensus is reached. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Your moving of pages in arbitration space

You are moving several pages in arbitration space without discussion. While the reason may be valid, I would strongly suggest not doing this without first asking if this is okay. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz: This edit summary seems to hint there is no issue with it, thus I started this task as I saw no controversy with it as these moves put the old discussions with the correct parent page. Because ... making sure archives match their correct parent page for ease of finding is cleanup. Steel1943 (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

While it is probably better that these pages are moved, it is causing a flood of messages in the clerks IRC channel. So if you do start this again, I'd recommend doing this more slowly. Furthermore, some of the new locations were redirects (for example Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cold fusion). While the edit summary in that example doesn't explain what motion necessitated the creation of the redirect, it seems that at some point the arbs were happier to redirect to the old location instead of moving the pages. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz: Not sure I agree that my edit summary was not clear. "Match current name of parent page" seems to ... clarify exactly why I have been doing these moves, and the edit summary stating where the page was and where it was moved to inherently states what the former parent page was and what it is now. If need be, I can update that edit summary to "Match current name of parent page from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case" if need be. (For the record, I did notice that not all subpages of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration apply to moving them to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case ... which is why I've been moving them in chunks by case rather than just moving the whole lot.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the edit summary I am talking about is an edit summary on a now deleted redirect (that was deleted by overwriting). Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Dreamy Jazz: Also, per the way Template:ArbCom sidebar is set up at the present time, the search box uses the root "Wikipedia:Arbitration" to find pages. Unless the pages' names are updated, they cannot be found with this search bar. Steel1943 (talk) 20:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz: Dangit ... annoying IIRC notifications. I'm assuming IIRC triggers a notification whenever a page in a certain subpage space is created ... and I'm assuming it is "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests" or "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Cases" or something of that nature? Steel1943 (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes. A bot keeps an eye on edits / log actions in arbitration space. There seems to be at least 6 IRC messages per case move. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz: Dang, okay yeah, that's a bit annoying. I'll hold off for now; I still see it being necessary, but I get what you mean there. Steel1943 (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I've have an arbitrator say that this is okay to do, so you can continue moving pages but preferably at a slower rate. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz: Thanks for doing the dirty work of asking someone for me! For now then, I guess I'm going to try to get the "A"s done, and then pick it back up in a few hours. (It's difficult to avoid too many notifications since I'm moving subpages of each case at once ... so, I may need a clearer number for what is "too many", but thanks for understanding that this is cleanup.) :D Steel1943 (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Someone will post here again if you are going to fast, so feel free to pick a speed. Also feel free to keep the log summary you were using before (as a shorter summary is less in terms of message content for IRC). Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Dreamy Jazz: Quick question (and most likely my last ping to you on my talk page): Which talk page on Wikipedia would you believe to be be the best place to inform those receiving IIRC notifications that I am making these moves? For example, I'm not sure if I should post this notice on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests, or somewhere else. Steel1943 (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee is probably the best place for this. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

There is also Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks, but this probably should be seen by the arbitrators to let them know in case they wonder why the IRC is filled with messages (so using the top level talk page is probably best). Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

On a editorial note: it would be helpful if you were to use "IRC" in your messages instead of "IIRC". I wondered if there was some tool called "if I recall correctly" (or maybe something else with the same initials) that generated notifications and tried to track that down before I saw this thread. isaacl (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Isaacl: Haha ... whoops ... yes, I'll get that acronym fixed in appropriate places. Steel1943 (talk) 22:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) . I've grumbled in the past that they're housed under different prefixes, so I'm okay with the moves themselves. I didn't propose it because I didn't think that others would agree that it was worth all of the time/effort spent on moves, but if you (Steel) want to do so, go ahead. Dreamy, I've just realised that these moves will affect the search box at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases (maybe there are others with similar codes?), so this is a note that they will have to be changed when the transition has been done (hopefully one of us remembers!). Thank you both. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Sdrqaz: Regarding: "...I've just realised that these moves will affect the search box at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases..." I see what you are referring to (I should have figured there was some page somewhere that was designed to find the older case archives), and am knowledgeable to update that {{Mbox}} transclusion after these moves are done. Steel1943 (talk) 21:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Seems like it's more than one, unfortunately. If you're willing to do so, that'd be great. If not, happy to do so myself. I guess in the long run it doesn't really matter, as the redirects will still be searchable. Thanks, Sdrqaz (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz and Sdrqaz: As I stated in the discussion I started at WT:ARB, I no longer have interest to perform these moves, and it seems as though there's a lot more controversy surrounding this than I had anticipated. Thus, I reverted the moves I made, restored any redirects that had existed prior to me making these moves. My interest in further pursuing these moves is currently nonexistent. Thank you for your time. Steel1943 (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

AfroCrowd meetup page moves

Similar to the section above, can you please revert your recent mass-moves of AfroCrowd meetup pages? For something like that, it's important to consult the meetup page maintainer first, in this case User:Shanluan. Pharos (talk) 01:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

The arbitration page issue above was significantly more serious than this: This is almost apples and oranges, not similar in degree at all since it doesn't involve arbitrators. These are moves similar to moves I did years ago for meetup pages to marry pages that ware supposed to be with their parent pages, and there were no issues. I moved 5 pages for a very clear reason; to match their appropriate parent subpage since otherwise. The arbitration page issue above was significantly more serious than this. Eh, no matter though; I just decided that I need to take a half-year wikibreak since I'm getting tired of some random editor believing there is controversy in what seems like clearly uncontroversial matters. Steel1943 (talk) 03:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@Pharos: Actually, it was 4 pages. Mass move my butt ... 4 PAGES. Anyways, I reverted what someone else could have done themselves per WP:BRD without leaving redirects. Anywho, I'll be archiving this soon since I have no desire to see your response. Good day/riddance. Steel1943 (talk) 03:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)