User talk:Steel1943/Archive 13

Add topic
Active discussions
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 19

Wiki Loves Pride pages

Yike, my watchlist is filled with so many pages moves and redlinks now. I'm not sure if these page moves were necessary, but now I feel obligated to go through and updates lots of pages and templates to reduce the number of redirects. Thanks for all you do here at Wikipedia, but I feel like a heads up here might have been nice. :) ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

  • @Another Believer: Truth be told, I understand what you mean, and I know what pages you are referring to; in fact, I actually had an internal struggle regarding the move of the "2017" page for the fact alone that it is still 2017. (I'll follow up on that in my second comment/ping .) Making pages in the Wikipedia namespace easier to navigate has been an on/off task of mine for a bit; one of the most prominent ways I have found to so is to move some pages to a title that will make it a subpage of an appropriate page, making it easier for those not technically-savvy to navigate between related pages. However, as you probably noticed, if the moved pages had subpages itself, the subpages have to be moved as well to marry them to the pages' new title. And I assume that you may have watchlisted every individual subpage, making your watchlist light up like a Christmas tree. For that, I apologize; however, from what I know, I don't have any method to determine 'who has a page on their watchlist, but only how many have watchlisted a page. Anyways, my moves only consisted of adding a "/" between the word "Pride" and the year represented in the title. Steel1943 (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Not to worry, and actually I feel like my message above may have come across as more rude than I intended. I just thought the page moves were unnecessary, and leaving lots of redirects, but not the end of the world. Thanks for your reply. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
      Thanks for your understanding. I left the redirects in place since all of those titles probably have incoming links, and I have no intent to break any of those incoming links. (I think there's even a guideline somewhere that states that it's a requirement to leave the redirects.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) @Another Believer: ...And my question to you regarding the Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride 2017 page, since I know you participate in most of these events since I saw your name on the pages. Am I correct in assuming that moving the current year's page to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Pride/2017 title may cause issues this year? I'm asking you since after I made the move, I had second thoughts and reverted myself. I would believe that even if the page was at Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride/2017, participants would still create pages as subpages of the title without the slash. Steel1943 (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) Umm, I guess you're fine moving 2017 pages for the sake of consistency. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
          • (Edit conflicts everywhere!  ) Okay, I may revisit that in 2018 then, just to be on the safe side. :) Steel1943 (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
            • @Another Believer: (Probably my final ping ... sorry for so many) I just noticed that you are the creator of the yearly pages. In that case, I'll go ahead and reinstate the 2017 move, in addition to working on the incoming links. Steel1943 (talk) 22:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
              • Thanks. Your help with repairing links is much appreciated. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @Another Believer: By the way, thank you for your follow-up edits on Template:Wiki Loves Pride. I usually check for incoming links in the "Template:" namespace when I perform such moves, but I assumed that there was not a template representing meetups for this subject. Please forgive me on that: I'm usually not that sloppy with it comes to looking for such incoming links. Steel1943 (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I am going through and fixing page moves. I'm sure I've missed some, but Wikipedia will survive, and editors will find where they need to go. :) ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Your recent page moves regarding WP:RRTF

Hey there, Steel1943. You recently moved a large quantity of Rick Riordan task force pages to new names, including WP:RRTF and Wikipedia:RRTF/Magnus box (and several others like this one). I just wanted to say I'm not sure what prompted these moves. In the case of WP:RRTF - a redirect used as a shortcut to get to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Rick Riordan task force - you didn't really accomplish anything. The redirect is still in place, but now it's just a leftover form your move. The others, like the "Magnus box", "PJ box", "roll call" pages etc. were even less helpful. These pages had intentionally short names, as they were being used as templates. The short syntax used to substitute them into pages was beneficial; some of their documentation even talks about this benefit. The from-move redirects that were just created will still work as templates (as far as I can tell), but the moves have only made these pages harder for members to find and use in the future.

I understand that you were trying to make all these subpages of the "Rick Riordan task force" main page, but I don't see why some can not be subpages of "RRTF". There have been "RRTF" subpages for most of a decade now, and I fail to see how doubling the number of mostly-blank Wikipedia subpages for the project is helpful at this point. I'll not ask you to revert your moves as it won't really accomplish anything, but I would ask that you please refrain from moving any other task force pages that you might come across. At the very least, the task force would appreciate some warning and an explanation of your reasoning in the future. We've had issues with other editors moving pages before causing template issues, and the cleanup has been time-consuming. Just trying to head off any more problems at the pass. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 03:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Hello 2ReinreB2. First, you are correct about that I did not actually do anything with Wikipedia:RRTF; I moved the page from one location to another so that I could move all of the subpages at the same time, rather than having to move all of them individually. I apologize for my moves causing confusion. I attempted to explain why I performed those moves when I created my edit notice for the moves. (I have recently been performing a rather lengthy cleanup task in the Wikipedia: namespace. The tasks I have been performing include looking for useless pages in the Wikipedia: namespace, ensuring that subpages are married to their proper parent pages, and other various tasks to ensure that all of our readers, no matter what they are trying to find, can easily access what they need to access, regardless of their technical abilities, or, for that matter, how to navigate Wikipedia.) In regards to the "WP:RRTF" subpages, as you said, they were not subpages of the page which Wikipedia:RRTF redirects, Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Rick Riordan task force. To make the pages uniform and easier to navigate on Wikipedia, I have been performing a task where if a page is a subpage of a redirect, then I move the page(s) to the appropriate subpage title(s) of the redirect's target. This helps readers who are not familiar with how to navigate Wikipedia from becoming confused when they arrive at a target of a redirect, then are not sure how to get back to the previous page. For example, for "Wikipedia:RRTF" versus "Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Rick Riordan task force": If someone is viewing Wikipedia:RRTF/Magnus box then clicks on the "Wikipedia:RRTF" link in the top-left corner of the screen, then will go to "Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Rick Riordan task force" instead of "Wikipedia:RRTF"; this may confuse someone who is not familiar with how Wikipedia works and was intending to find content at "Wikipedia:RRTF". Also, making sure that all pages have the same parent page also helps with page lookups when using Special:PrefixIndex. Someone who is familiar with using Special:PrefixIndex would not be able to find all of the pages related to "Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Rick Riordan task force" unless they are subpages of "Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Rick Riordan task force"; if additional pages are hidden under "Wikipedia:RRTF", they would not be able to find those pages when searching "Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Rick Riordan task force". Lastly, moving all of the pages as subpages of one central page ensures that in the event of a page move, all of the pages that need to be moved are accounted for. Page movers and administrators have the ability to move 100 subpages at once in the event that a parent page gets moved; however, the subpages can only be moved in one sitting if all of the subpages have the same parent page, and if all of the necessary subpages do not have the same parent page, they could be completely forgotten about in the event of a mass page move, or if an administrator who is deleting pages needs to find all necessary pages to delete per WP:G8. (I have seen the aforementioned example happen several times, and that was what gave me the idea to start this cleanup task; I guess my best way to further explain that is some of the pages that should have been deleted per WP:G8 were also eligible to be deleted per WP:G3.)
Anyways, I hope this explains why I did what I did; either way, none of the existing transclusions or links to the pages that start with "WP:RRTF" would have been affected by these moves since they should all redirect to the respective page I moved them to with "Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Rick Riordan task force" as their parent. (I'm a bit careful when it comes to these moves; I truly understand what you mean when you say Just trying to head off any more problems at the pass., and if I thought there would have been any page-breaking problems, I would not have performed the moves.) However, you just reminded me that I should check to see if there are any transclusions or links to pages that start with "Wikipedia:RRTF" that should be replaced with a direct link to the parent. I'm willing to help out in any way I can. Steel1943 (talk) 03:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
@2ReinreB2: I went through the subpages of Wikipedia:RRTF that I moved and added a {{Shortcut}} template to each of their new titles, signifying the name of the page as a subpage of Wikipedia:RRTF prior to the moves I performed. Steel1943 (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I appreciate your taking the time to respond with such care. You've not quite convinced me that this way is clearer for readers/users, but that's okay. You've made it clear that you have thought this through, so I'm content to agree to disagree. I also really appreciate you going through and adding those shortcut templates; I wouldn't have known [how] to do that, and it helps. Thanks! Happy editing, 2ReinreB2 (talk) 01:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

List of Golden Sun characters

Hi, Steel1943. I'm from Chinese Wikipedia, and with an interest in rules in English Wikipedia, so I'm glad if you respond me by citing policies and guidelines. The reason I did the redirect is a rule of thumb in your Wikipedia: any character article/list without a development/reception section should be redirected. And per WP:VGSCOPE#6, we can't accept a character list without secondary sources (whether it has notability or not, it is against with WP:PLOT). Is there any other rules about character lists? And why this (or any) series article needs a character list? (IMO, if a 700-word-plot summary is enough to make readers understand the synopsis, the character list section is redundant.) Regards. --A Sword in the Wind (talk | changes) 08:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Hello A Sword in the Wind! Thank you for your contributions here on the English Wikipedia. I did see some of your contributions after I made that revert, and I am quite impressed with your contributions here: I tried to make contributions on a Wikipedia in a language other than my native one, and I eventually had to stop due to realizing how little of the language I actually knew. Anyways, regarding List of Golden Sun characters, thanks for reaching out to me on this. Once I read this note, o realized that the second time I reverted the redirect to post a proper edit summary, I undid myself rather than you. I have now performed an "undo" that should be sent to your notifications about why I actually performed the revert. (For some reason, I did not notice your "WP:VGSCOPE statement in your original edit summary.) I reverted your redirecting the page since the article Golden Sun (series) seems to not have a list of characters, making redirect there misleading for readers trying to find a list of characters in the series. That, and I read all of the page which WP:VGSCOPE redirects; I cannot find information about it being standard to blank and redirect such articles. Anyways, in my edit summary, I recommended that the list be nominated for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If List of Golden Sun characters is nominated there, I would most likely support its deletion; I agree that the list is unnotable (including most of the characters on the list) and is probably a violation of WP:NOTWIKIA. Steel1943 (talk) 14:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
    Redirecting with or without merging is a valid alternative to deletion. If you all agree it should be redirected (and in its current state, it probably should be), then redirect it and pay it no more mind. --Izno (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Precious two years!

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Unsolicited words...

Hi, Steel,

Somehow you seem to have been under the impression that I have some major problems with your executed closes. Precisely, I have none.(Esp. when they were just relists!)That I came to view your arguments or points in two recent move-rel. disc. with Dr.Strauss, I am of a gentle belief (It goes without saying that it can be horribly wrong!) that you are willing to group policy based !votes from experienced editors in the same pan with no-policy-based ones from newbies/acc. often, whose sole contributions are at the AfDs etc. While this is purely a personal choice and by assuming good faith, one can go along:--Hell with the rules! The community has decided to do it!, I feel/have seen that assumptions of a such consensus is often wrong for the very biased-editor-set (acquired either through sock-puppetry or meat-puppetry at most of the cases) at the discussion venue.For one, I feel that, in general, WP:AADD and WP:NOTVOTE shall be tried to be enforced(barring some of the draconian measures!).But again, (as I have personally felt), the borderline between following these practises and not getting into the supervote region is extremely delicate and wafer-thin--in certain scenarios.With warm regards:)Feel free to keep this, if this is of some worth or purge....Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 15:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

  • @Godric on Leave and Winged Blades of Godric: I appreciate your clarification on the matter; your first statement regarding what I thought was going on is spot on, so I apologize for misunderstanding your intentions and taking issue with your words. And wow, I am speechless at the moment. At this time, the only thought I have is that I have gained a good amount of respect for you as a Wikipedia editor, and I have no way of formulating my words into thoughts at the moment. I'll return to this conversation soon; I have to attend to some RL events, but I wanted to respond to you promptly since I understand what you mean more that I am capable of saying at the moment. Steel1943 (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @Godric on Leave and Winged Blades of Godric: When I first read your comment, I had no idea how to word my response since it connects to my way of thinking a considerable amount. It almost seems that our experiences, though possibly similar, have produced different results. But yeah, you are so spot into my way of thinking that I really am struggling to figure out what I can add. So, to confirm, you are correct, I try to assue good faith in discussions regardless the skill level of the editor in question. In my perspective, all editors performed WP:IAR edits, specifically at the beginning of their tenure of editing Wikipedia; however, the rules were ignored because they were not known, essentially making new editors' situations a rational claim of ignorance. The editors who are not and will probably never be regular editors on Wikipedia will probably never take the time to learn and study the consensus-based guidelines that have been formed over the course of Wikipedia's 10+ existence. For example, I adapted to learn these policies after I became a regular editor in 2012. And with not knowing policies comes editors who point out existing policies and precedents that I had no idea existed to either guide me to the right place for understanding consensus-formed precedence, or in some cases, just to sound like they know more than me. (Would you believe that the latter happens more often than the former?) But, in regards to the connection you state regarding "SUPERVOTE" to "relisting": My personal belief is that in most cases, regardless of what policy is presented in opposition to a move request (or "keep" in an WP:RFD discussion, etc.), relisting does not come with implied bias. Also in my opinion, unless a discussion has been relisted at least once, if the sole vote in a discussion is opposition to the proposal, it really isn't enough to ascertain consensus due to lack of adequate time to gain community opposition against the proposal; if the discussion has been relisted at least once, then it is more evident that the discussion will probably not receive any further input from the community, validating the existing opposition to the proposal. Anyways, tangent aside, I attempt to assume the same level of good faith with all editors regardless of their editing experience, considering that expert editors sometimes come from accounts that usually have little Wikipedia experience. And, ya never know when that troublesome WP:SPA with WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE issues could realize the error of their ways, turn a new leaf, and become one of Wikipedia's most productive editors. (Sorry if this is a bit tl;dr; I had a lot of individual thoughts on your comment, and I'm not even sure if I wrote them all here.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Just seen your reply.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 06:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Relisting mechanism


I'm just going through the RM backlog and I've seen the snazzy AfD-style banners that you've managed to incorporate into your relistings. Did you do that via Twinkle? When I tried it broke the bot...


DrStrauss talk 20:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

  • @DrStrauss: I'm using {{Relist}} and putting it at the bottom of the discussion, just like what is done in most WP:XFD discussions. (I try to use that template if I see a concern that needs addressing during the move discussion to form consensus.) But no, I place it manually. Steel1943 (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Specific pages

Why did you redirect "Penguin (comics)" and "Poison Ivy (comics)" to "Penguin (character)" and "Poison Ivy (character)" with no explanation even though they don't have their own comic series like Joker, Kingpin, Iceman, and Wolverine? --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) @Rtkat3: Did you by chance see the edits prior to the edits you are referring to? In those edits, I stated that I was moving the page away for an incoming move/page. The edits you are referring to were to restablish their target after the pages were moved. I moved the target articles per the current wording of WP:NCCDAB (Penguin, Poison Ivy), specifically per "Articles primarily about characters appearing in a comic should use the phrase (character). (Their previous titles were the redirects you are referring to.) For a related discussion supporting such moves, see Talk:Robin (character)#Requested move 17 August 2017. Steel1943 (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to add a bit more since looking at the history of the redirects, I'd be confused as well. The redirects were originally created at their respective "(character)" titles, and they redirected to their respective "(comics)" titles. After I moved the articles (per WP:NCCDAB), "(comics)" redirected to "(character)" instead. Steel1943 (talk) 16:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I see what you are talking about. In instances where I discover this, I would work to fix the redirects on other pages linking to them like other contributors did. I just thought that the redirects were done because they might've had solo issues at some point like the examples that I listed. --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@Rtkat3: In cases where the leftover disambiguator is made ambiguous with another existing article post-move, I usually do exactly what you just stated. However, in this case, since the comic book series article(s) do not exist, instead, I only updated the links in the "Template:" and "File:" namespaces. (Per WP:BRINT for templates and to update the name of the article for files [I think there's a guideline for that, but I cannot locate it at the moment.]) Steel1943 (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Steel1943, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
  • Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!

Technology update:

  • The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225

General project update:

  • On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
  • Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
  • To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

GBA Network Boot discussion

You can do whatever you want with that page because I guess I made that page so long ago (about 10 years ago) that I didn't even remember doing so until now.Uuruuseiyo (talk) 07:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


Hello Steel. You changed my consolidated hatnote at IBM but introduced a typo. I've reverted to my version not because of that typo, but because one single consolidated hatnote, using the {{hatnote}} template, is better than 2 (or more) separate hatnotes, because it's shorter. From WP:HATNOTE: "{{Hatnote}} allows general text to be shown in hatnote format. It is appropriate ... to combine several of them in a single hatnote." I hope this is helpful. Regards, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

  • @Shhhnotsoloud: I hadn't realized that I had left the unnecessary extra "It is not to be confused with" wording in the hatnote when I made my changes. But, either way, given that I do a lot of edits on Wikipedia related to disambiguation and hatnotes, I disagree with your interpretation of Wikipedia:Hatnote#Generic hatnote, considering the text you omitted from your citation: "{{Hatnote}} allows general text to be shown in hatnote format. It is appropriate when none of the other specific templates listed below includes the combination of parameters needed, or to combine several of them in a single hatnote." I've always understood that as essentially stating "If multiple templates have appropriate specific parameters for each necessary distinction, that is preferable over having one generic hatnote with custom text already generated by other hatnote templates." (I've seen my interpretation used on most pages I've seen with hatnote(s), thus why I interpret that guideline as so.) That, and in my own opinion, the hatnotes should be separate since the use of the search term "IBM" on Wikipedia is separate from "Big Blue"; in other words, it would make no sense to put terms/subjects named "IBM" and "Big Blue" on the same disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 11:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, it seems our interpretations are indeed fundamentally different. I'll give some thought to that, and may raise it at the Hatnotes Talk page, in which case I'll let you know. Cheers, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@Shhhnotsoloud: Agreed. After giving it some more thought, I do realize that there are some existing hatnote templates that are a bit of an exception to what I'm saying, such as {{Redirect-multi}} (which can be set up to refer to multiple, most likely distinct disambiguation pages), but I don't see how any more specific hatnote template other than {{Hatnote}} can be used to present the necessary distinctions for "IBM" and "Big Blue" on IBM without using multiple templates, considering that "IBM" itself is not a redirect. I looked through Category:Hatnote templates for a bit, and I could not find such a template.Steel1943 (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I think all the {{redirect}}, {{for}}, {{about}} etc templates are just special versions of the {{hatnote}} template, designed to make editors' lives easier. There simply isn't a instantiation of a hatnote-variant template for every complex scenario. My opinion: one consolidated hatnote, using the {{hatnote}} template if necessary, is always better than 2, 3 or more individual hatnotes (on separate lines). Get the majority of readers to what they want quicker. WP:Hatnote basic rule #5 "If at all possible, limit hatnotes to just one at the top of the page." That is precisely the opposite of your "If multiple templates have appropriate specific parameters for each necessary distinction, that is preferable over having one generic hatnote with custom text already generated by other hatnote templates." Nevertheless, let's not fall out over this - you do great work for Wikipedia. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 05:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
@Shhhnotsoloud: Thanks! And no worries; it takes a lot more than this to have a "fall out". But interesting; not sure how/why I've never noticed "#5", considering that I've never seen it done in practice for every, or even most, applications. Can't say I agree with it in full since there are applications (in my opinion) for why separate hatnotes are clearer for the reader (as well using separate hatnotes being more helpful for individual hatnote template maintenance). I've always looked at the template {{Hatnote}} as the "module" that runs more specific templates, even thinking that the direct use of {{Hatnote}} should be avoided since there should be a more specific template in existence to use for what is being distinguished/disambiguated. Anyways, quite interesting. Steel1943 (talk) 13:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


I replied to you here. Just though you'd like to know. Sakura Cartelet Talk 02:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Steel1943, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
  • We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

  • Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

  The Navigation Barnstar
As one of the editors who really cares about tidy navigation, here's a barnstar to say proper job for all the work you have done to help keep the uncharted depths of Wikipedia's navigational system free from unwanted debris. Dysklyver 22:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!

  I'm not sure what's going on in real life, but it seems you could use one of these. I don't want a silly misunderstanding to ruin one of my strongest wiki-friendships. Cheers, mate. -- Tavix (talk) 23:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Moved disambiguation page

The page White dragon (disambiguation) was moved to White Dragon (disambiguation). The 14th item on your userpage under "Disambiguation or name pages I have created and/or contributed substantially" therefore needs to be updated accordingly. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 23:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

 Hello, Steel1943. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Steel1943, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
  • Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

  • If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

  • A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
  • Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

  • ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
  • The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
  • To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


Hi, Sorry about the FFD, After tagging it at Commons and then ranting here it suddenly clicked as to what the purpose of creating it was, I read the image 3 times and it still didn't click first time!, Ah well apologies for that any my preceding actions after, Thanks for actually redirecting over there :), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 01:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings".  :) BOZ (talk) 01:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Seasons' Greetings you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:43, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


Thank you for spotting that one. I have noted "15 per cent of the citations for the term in the Oxford English Corpus " in the Talk. Just a note that I would supporting taking that to Move Review if your RM doesn't pass. This is a fairly classic and clear example of user-unfriendly titling. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


Hi Steel, Hope all is well, Could you work your magic with File:New Bitmap Image1.PNG please - I know it can be redirected to Commons and all that but shant try myself as I'll flaff it up so was wondering if you could do it instead :), Thanks, –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 19:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Brilliant thank you :), –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 19:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


Please, if you bump into more Serbian place names, wait with moving them. There has been discussions on the article name style (see also).--Zoupan 03:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

  • @Zoupan: The following has been part of that section since at least 03:12, 29 July 2013:

    Villages are always (regardless of reason) disambiguated using municipality name in parentheses, for consistency: Crna Bara (Aleksinac), Jaša Tomić (Sečanj) etc.

    ...Due to the guideline and examples reflecting the use of parentheses in titles for Serbian villages being present in that section for over 4 years (I could have went back further, but I eventually gave up since that statement has been there for so long), my recent moves of Serbian villages seem rather uncontroversial. Also, all of my recent moves were only done to "village" pages. Steel1943 (talk) 12:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Madonna (EP), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Madonna (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

New Years new page backlog drive

Hello Steel1943, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

  • The total number of reviews completed for the month.
  • The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)