User talk:Steel1943/Archive 15

Add topic
Active discussions
Archive 10 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 19

Beer on me

  Thanks for your civility at RFD and apologies for my own curtness. Triptothecottage (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Moving closed AfDs

Hi! Not disagreeing with, just curious about this move. What's the reason in moving a long closed AfD? Thanks StarM 03:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

  • @Star Mississippi: No worries. Reason is that the current naming standard, as well as probably every tool and template that lists AfD discussions, requires the nominations after the first to end with "(2nd nomination)", "(3rd nomination)", etc. to function currently. For example, if the first nomination happened, but then the second nomination was for some reason named with an ending other than "(2nd nomination)", such as "(second nomination), "2", or even "(2nd nom)", WP:TWINKLE does not work right, and most times, these subsequent nominations aren't found, resulting in multiple "2nd" nominations. (Basically, I'm doing archive cleanup to prevent issues for happening at any point in the future, and to make the past discussions easier to locate.) Steel1943 (talk) 04:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
...Seems you've probably had that page on your watchlist for over a decade. I had my account created by then, but didn't edit until 2011. Wow, Wikipedia makes me realize how much time flies all the time. Steel1943 (talk) 04:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Makes total sense. Figured there was probably some reason that made moving decade old AfDs logical that just didn't occur to me. And even beyond the decade on the watch list -- that I happened to look at Wikipedia when it was at the top of it. I'm not very active anymore and don't regularly keep up on my watchlist. Guess I'm officially Wikipedia old, LOL StarM 00:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Daily Mail RfD relisting

I was fixing to close it last night, but the kiddo woke up and, well, one thing lead to another... Do you have a strong aversion to be un-relisting/closing it? ~ Amory (utc) 11:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I noticed

you moved my RfA page and then reverted yourself shortly after. Why did you do that?-- Flooded with them hundreds 19:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Actually you’re not mistaken, but even so I’m not sure why that would require moving the RfA after the fact.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Archive organization so stuff can be found easier, and in RfA's case, know how many nominations a nominee really has (and fixing all incoming links in the process, of course). For further information, see my comment in Enterprisey's recent RfA. Steel1943 (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
...And I thought I did see one, but I've already forgotten what it was, if I actually did. Steel1943 (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Template doc pages

Hi. I'm not sure I fully see the point of creating an empty doc page like Template:Roe1916/doc. My impression was that separate doc pages are needed either for performance reasons for large templates, or if it's expected that the template might at some point get protected (and so the documentation could continue to be editable). If a template is small and simple, and it's too niche and little uses to need protection, then the documentation should be able to happily live at the template's page, no? – Uanfala (talk) 01:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

  • @Uanfala: I don't know if you've also noticed that I've been tagging most of those with also {{Improve documentation}} (most had no documentation) and {{Uncategorized}}, a couple of tags that I do not believe belong on main "Template:" pages since they could break the very templates they represent if improperly used. Steel1943 (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
...That, and I'm now starting to see transclusions of {{Template reference list}} as a backlog that needs double checking. Steel1943 (talk) 01:56, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
...And most of those templates I edited are in Category:Specific-source templates, but there is no explanation by most of those templates' creators about what the source is, when it should be used, why they chose their template name ... amongst many other questions. Steel1943 (talk) 01:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Can {{Improve documentation}} and the like break templates when noincluded? But specific-source template are pretty self-explanatory, I doubt most of them really need documentation. – Uanfala (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I humbly disagree with "...But specific-source template are pretty self-explanatory..." since they sort of also require the user to know why they are using the template and what the source is, and for some reason, the "secret handshake" known as the template name. That, and moving the content to a "/doc" page allows easier navigation in the event someone wants to do more with the template, such as create a sandbox or a testcase page. All and all, IMO, it's more user-friendly to non-tech savvy editors who may unintentionally break a template by editing the documentation on the main template page rather than a less-human error prone documentation subpage. Steel1943 (talk) 02:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Bit of a sidenote ... these edits are the result of me looking at pages with transclusions of {{ISBN}}. Steel1943 (talk) 02:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I've never dealth with sandboxes and the like, so I'll take your word that a doc subpage makes them easier to add. But again, these templates are pretty small and obscure, so I can't quite imagine people rushing to build sandboxes and testcases for them. And there's the flip side: a subpage adds to the maintenance cost and the likelihood of cockups if the template is merged, redirected or deleted. Yes, it makes it easier to edit the doc without messing up the template, but I don't think it makes things better for newbies: if they want to edit the documentation they'll have to figure out that the familiar "Edit" button doesn't work and they'll have to click on the little "edit" link down there under. Overall, I think for that kind of templates, separate doc pages addd to the complexity without providing tangible benefits. – Uanfala (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, its a bit 50/50 on the practicality. But, I don't see it harming anyone by their existence. That, and it sort of starndardaizes the appearance and functionality of template pages. Back to a minor point about these reference templates, I've seen in the past the history of one of those templates where it started referencing only one source, but then somehow after being edited by an editor other than the template's creator became a template with parameters to refer to either different parts of the reference or difference references altogether. But, either way, these subpages really don't harm Wikipedia ... until the day that WMF starts becoming concerned about an overuse of server resources by editors/volunteers on their projects, but to my knowledge, that has yet to happen and per the nature of Wikipedia, it probably never should. Steel1943 (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Single Use Templates

Re your numerous nominations for TFD (Which I 100% support btw), if only we could get everyone to agree that "single use" was a valid reason to subst and delete... Category:Infobox element per element. UGHHHHHH. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

About the Stanelli closure.

Hello there Steel. I hope your day has been good. You closed the page moving request of Edward Stanelli with very little consensus, granted with minute input. Do you mind if I re-open it and gain consensus either/or? We need a genuine input before we close. I'd keep it open for another week, then see what happens. Your help will be appreciated. Thanks. The Duke 22:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

  • @The Duke of Nonsense: There hasn't been any input in that discussion since your comment after the initial relist on 5 April 2019. If there hasn't seen any interest to add to the discussion after two weeks, there probably will not be. In addition, relisting your own discussion repeatedly like you have, in a way, goes against the premise that Wikipedia is a community project. However, what I will do is recluse my discussion to "no consensus", which may help in a way: See WP:NOCONSENSUS for further information how that may be beneficial. Steel1943 (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

A badger for you

  A badger for you
Since I also would have also failed your criteria, I hereby award you this badger as an inevitability.   78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Ananya Panday / Ananya Pandey

Heh, I edit conflicted with you merging the nominations in the opposite direction! I'm not sure why I didn't think to merge in the first place. Thryduulf (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

  • @Thryduulf: I saw! But, in retrospect now, I'm thinking I should have merged the way you were attempting to do: Into the newer day's nomination to give both redirects at least a full 7-days discussion. However, the older discussion had more participation, and thus would probably be more useful with forming consensus. I'm thinking maybe the old discussion should just go ahead and be relisted to give the newly-nominated redirect a full 7-days, but have no real strong opinion on that other than seeing the possible need to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I don't think it's worth the hassle of changing it at this point. Chances are either Bdash or Rubbish Computer will relist the combined discussion in a few days anyway. Thryduulf (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

MOS:DABABBREVIATIONS listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect MOS:DABABBREVIATIONS. Since you had some involvement with the MOS:DABABBREVIATIONS redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. –MJLTalk 14:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

List of United Kingdom by-elections (1900–18)

By deleting List of United Kingdom by-elections (1900–18) without a redirect you have created hundreds of redlinks, many of them in templates. DuncanHill (talk) 08:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

  • @DuncanHill: I was doing a round-robin move per WP:PAGEMOVER, but then I was interrupted by life, and didn't finish the move. If there are any leftover artifacts that need fixing, I'll work on that now. Steel1943 (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Hybrid (Marvel Comics) (disambiguation) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hybrid (Marvel Comics) (disambiguation). Since you had some involvement with the Hybrid (Marvel Comics) (disambiguation) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Certes (talk) 10:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisting discussions

When you are relisting discussions such as Suicidal, be sure to update the link which I just did here. Interstellarity T 🌟 16:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

  • @Interstellarity: Please see the edit summary of my revert of that edit. Also, what you did in that edit is unnecessary and not standard at all. Proposals to require that be done with all relists should be brought up on WT:RFD. (I'm informing you of this as someone who has repeatedly been involved in creating proposals for upgrading RFD relisting and closing procedures for several years now.) IMO, the original link should remain to keep the paper trail intact. Steel1943 (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry about that. Interstellarity T 🌟 20:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


This wouldn't have been eligible as a technical move request. The disambiguation page was only created yesterday, while the political faction has been at this title for over a decade, until it got moved to a disambiguated title last year, with the "Sarim" redirect still pointing there until you swapped the two pages just now. – Uanfala (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

  • IMO, 1 year without anyone's intervention = uncontroversial. Are you attempting WP:DRV? If so, please let me know rather than beating around the bush. Steel1943 (talk) 23:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
    • I just think there's something you've misunderstood. If someone created a dab page and retargeted the redirect there and then no-one objected for a year, I'd agree with you. But that's not the case here. A dab page was only created yesterday. Before that, Sarim was either the title of the article about the faction, or – after that move last year – a redirect to that article. The primary topic status of that article was not challenged, explicitly or implicitly, until today when Paul brought it to RfD. – Uanfala (talk) 00:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Right, I get that. If someone had challenged the status quo at at some point during the last year, I wouldn't have considered the move uncontroversial. But you did mention something I did not realize ... the dab page was created yesterday. I'll be right back... Steel1943 (talk) 02:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


Hello S. Do you know anything about editing at Wikidata? If yes perhaps you can help at this thread Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Template search. If not no worries. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 18:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

  • @MarnetteD: Looks like that reference is listed in the "population" item of d:Q72380. (I know a little bit about Wikidata). However, to me, this looks more like an issue with template:Ru-pop-ref since the documentation doesn't seem to match what the template does. What are you trying to accomplish with that long URL? Steel1943 (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I am looking to see if it can be formatted into a cite template so that it doesn't show as a bare url in the Kurchatov, Russia article. As I mentioned in the thread there isn't anything that can be done here - unless you discover a fix that can be done here that is :-) I am leery about editing at Wikidata as I don't want to mess things up. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 18:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC) MarnetteD|Talk 18:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ Russian Federal State Statistics Service (2011). Всероссийская перепись населения 2010 года. Том 1 [2010 All-Russian Population Census, vol. 1]. Всероссийская перепись населения 2010 года [2010 All-Russia Population Census] (in Russian). Federal State Statistics Service.
    • Well, that's weird. That template works just fine in my talk page. Steel1943 (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Actually, that looks like reference "2" in the article. What is causing reference "3"? Still trying to figure that out... Steel1943 (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
        • I'm still not able to determine what is causing reference 3 to appear ... Steel1943 (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Curiouser and curiouser said Alice. Nardog mentioned something about a flaw in the infobox template as well. I appreciate you taking a look as I have no idea how to fix this. MarnetteD|Talk 18:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Excellent S. I am glad that you were able to figure out what was going on and fix it. I've been formatting bare urls for more than two years and this was the first time I encountered this. If I see it again I will need to call on your expertise again. If you don't mind I will add a link at the VPT thread to this one so that others can see what you've done. Many many thanks. MarnetteD|Talk 19:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

File:ํYasothon football club logo, Jan 2016.jpg

Hi Steel1943. Hope you're doing well. Since you're a file mover, I thought you'd be a good person to ask about this particular file. There's a random character added to the beginning of the file name which doesn't seem to be being used anywhere in Yasothon F.C. or even on the Facebook page given as the source for the image. It could be some kind of non-English character for pronuncitation purposes, but it could've just as easily been a stray character that wasn't removed when the file was uploaded. Is there any point in changing the file's name to remove the character since technically File:Yasothon football club logo, Jan 2016.jpg doesn't exist? Maybe creating a redirect from the characterless version would prevent any possible issues from accidentally leaving out the character without actually changing the file's name? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Hello Marchjuly, I went ahead and moved that file per WP:FNC#5 since it did not seem like the subject's official name contained that character either. (That character seemed to have been in the alternative language since it aligned with the right side of the page/text rather than the left side of the page/text [which alphanumeric characters do traditionally, like the ones I'm typing now.]) Steel1943 (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks for taking a look at this. I wasn’t sure if was enough to warrant a {{Rename media}} request. — Marchjuly (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Hee Hee

Hi S. I just finished cleaning up around 60 some odd bare urls so in the case of this I would use the title of the book I read in college by E. F. Schumacher - Small Is Beautiful :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 04:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

BTW the new refill 2 is pretty slick :-) MarnetteD|Talk 04:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
@MarnetteD: For sure! And sure enough, I've already hit a few urls that neither Refill 2 or Reflinks can't fix! Gotta stop biting off more than I can chew! (And yes, whoever made he overhaul of that Refill interface did a dang good job!) Steel1943 (talk) 04:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Kiev etc

Hello. Since you, as far as I can see, have never taken part in the endless, and very repetitive, Kiev -> Kyiv discussions on Talk:Kiev and Talk:Kiev/naming you can't possibly know anything about the level of disruption there has been on those pages for more than ten years now, and thus shouldn't start moving things around without discussing it first with the people who have been active there. Your move of the list of old discussions to a separate page did not improve anything, and the message you added in the list, about all discussions being held on Talk:Kiev/naming, isn't needed, since it's already stated right below the project banner on Talk:Kiev. So I suggest you move everything back to where it once was. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 21:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

  • @Thomas.W: I'll perform reverts on the changes to the instructions I made (since I later realized that I was following something an IP said and not established editors), but as for everything else, since I strongly believe that the other work I did helped organize the archives, I'll have to respectfully decline. I'll provide diffs of what I'm reverting after I am done. Steel1943 (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Also, regarding " can't possibly know anything about the level of disruption there has been on those pages for more than ten years..." ... Considering I just cherry picked through all the archives, yes I do. It doesn't take a discussion participant to see what's been going on; anyone reviewing the archives can clearly get a clue, so please don't assume you are aware of what I do and don't know. Steel1943 (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Also, in regards to the archives: Honestly, they were a flippin' mess, and the archivist in me cannot be okay with them going back to their messy numbering and missing numbering and potentially confusing the blazes our of anyone who looks at them. They are now numbered appropriately, and their order allows templates like {{Tan}} and {{Aan}} to function properly. And as for Talk:Kiev/naming/old discussion list: I created it since the exact same information/list was on multiple pages (Talk:Kiev and Talk:Kiev/naming); unless the plan is to put that list on only one page, not creating a separate page for the list risks having contradicting or incorrect information on one page but not the other. I even added a link to the new page for ease of editing that page since everyone is not technical. Anyways, long story short, other than what I have already reverted, I fail to see any problems or issues with the edits I made, and believe this must be a misunderstanding. Steel1943 (talk) 21:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Steel1943 and Thomas.W, I don't think the active requested move (Talk:Kiev/naming § Requested move 9 July 2019) should be on the Talk:Kiev/naming page. Right now, the discussion isn't being listed properly on Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions, and it's classified as a malformed request. I see that the notice on Talk:Kiev/naming has the message "Please note that due to technical reasons any actual move requests need to be made on Talk:Kiev, but should be moved here after they have closed." Would it be possible to relocate the requested move discussion back to Talk:Kiev while it's active, and then relocate it back to Talk:Kiev/naming once it's closed? — Newslinger talk 04:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Fyunck(click), who restored the instructions. — Newslinger talk 04:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Maybe that's the reason the notice was put there to begin with? Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
As far as I can see, the part of the instructions in Special:Diff/905556104 is not being followed. Either the requested move discussion should be relocated to Talk:Kiev while it's active, or the sentence in the notice should be deleted. Steel1943 was criticized for following the instructions when they assumed the sentence was correct, and then prevented from deleting the sentence when they assumed it was incorrect. This is inconsistent, and we need to settle on one or the other. — Newslinger talk 05:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • An WP:RM can only be made on the talkpage of the article which someone is requesting to rename. On Kiev, we've been then moving them to the name subpage because the topic gets so much traffic. Softlavender (talk) 05:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
    If this is the accepted practice at Talk:Kiev and Talk:Kiev/naming, would you mind changing the notice at the top of Talk:Kiev/naming to reflect this? Perhaps something like "Please note that due to technical reasons any actual move requests need to be made on Talk:Kiev, but should be moved here after they are listed on WP:RMC." (emphasis added) could eliminate any misunderstandings in the future? Note that this practice causes the discussion to be listed as a malformed request at WP:RMC § Malformed requests. — Newslinger talk 06:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
    I'll let someone else do that. Anyone can do it. Softlavender (talk) 06:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
      Done. See Special:Diff/905613802. — Newslinger talk 06:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
    So that notice that had been there for 10 years was correct, but not worded clearly. I'm glad that got straightened out. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
    @Wbm1058: Pinging you to bring this to your attention ... since this obviously has the potential to cause RMCD bot to post such moves in the "Malformed requests" section of Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions if the request is not entered and transferred in a certain way (Talk:Kiev/naming vs. Talk:Kiev), sort of as an FYI if you ever run across someone reporting this. Steel1943 (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Given that this seems to be an extreme one-off, this edit by Paine Ellsworth seems to have patched this so it works at RM as configured. I'd rather not encourage too much creativity in this regard. In other words, I don't want to make it too "normal" to have such endless name-change discussions that editors routinely resort to setting up subpages for the purpose. wbm1058 (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Fyunck(click), Softlavender, and Newslinger: Thank you all for sorting that out. Even I agree that all move requests should be posted on the talk page of (one of) the page(s) being moved, but after reading all those notices, I thought this page was some sort of extreme exception, especially given the message from Thomas.W above. Anyways, glad it got resolved in a consensus-like fashion. Steel1943 (talk) 12:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Just coming by to give you a HUMONGOUS thank you for straightening out the archives on Talk:Kiev/naming. That had bothered me for years, but I just wasn't sure of how to go about fixing it. --Khajidha (talk) 12:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Clarifying edits to portal archives

I just undid two of your edit to portal archives with the edit summary I believe "archive1" was intended. (1, 2) Immediately after doing so, I realized that edit summary was slightly ambiguous, so I thought I'd clarify. What I meant was that you replaced Portal:PortalName with Portal:PortalName/archive2, when you should have replaced with Portal:PortalName/archive1 (in those particular cases).

Of course, your original edit was a while ago, so this is probably somewhat irrelevant for you, but I just thought I'd clarify in case the revert diffs didn't make sense. Retro (talk | contribs) 11:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Um, in this case, it would have been better to request history split. I was actually actively doing that when you created the page.
(But it can still be backmerged.) Retro (talk | contribs) 12:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
@Retro: I'm not done editing yet. But the precedence with those pages seems to be what I have done at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Hong Kong. (Compare to Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Literature.) And yes, I was in the middle of requesting a history merge when I was also in the process of fixing incoming links to that page. Steel1943 (talk) 12:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
See here. Steel1943 (talk) 12:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not saying you went against precedent. My (minor) disappointment is that you appended an extra edit on Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Hong Kong/archive1 that significantly changes the latest edit timestamp. But maybe that revision can be deleted. Retro (talk | contribs) 12:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
But then again, latest edit timestamp isn't necessarily the cleanest way to query when the latest edit substantial edit was, because of inconsistencies exactly like this. Retro (talk | contribs) 12:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Right, because I just edited the page. When fixing these pages, there is always going to be a new "latest edit timestamp" somewhere; this cannot be avoided, and I completely fail to see how this is concerning. Steel1943 (talk) 12:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
...And wow, I don't remember doing these edits to featured portal archives ... but I most have been quite involved as I even updated Template:Fopo to allow linking to archived nominations. Steel1943 (talk) 12:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
When I made those comments a moment ago, I was under the impression there might have been a way to move the previous history without leaving a newer edit timestamp. But upon further consideration, I think there would have been an automatic edit history entry when when the page was moved, so I suspect I was mistaken.
I'm not "concerned" over the timestamps. I was just looking at this from a page analysis perspective, and naively hoping that the latest edit timestamp would be a somewhat reliable way to discern the latest substantial edit. But this particular case is definitely not the only the only case where the archive structure has been reorganized; GimmeBot cleaned up and moved many of these previously, and human editors similarly did the same at different points, so there's not going to be much reliability for portals that were nominated multiple times. So really, my "disappointment" is a bit silly on my part. Retro (talk | contribs) 12:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

LiSA listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect LiSA. Since you had some involvement with the LiSA redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. –MJLTalk 22:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Recurring enemies in The Legend of Zelda series listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Recurring enemies in The Legend of Zelda series. Since you had some involvement with the Recurring enemies in The Legend of Zelda series redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Discovery Travel & Living logo.svg

Hi Steel1943. Would you mind taking a look at this? It's shadowing c:File:Discovery Travel & Living logo.svg, but the two files are slightly different (the local one seems more complex in design at least for c:COM:TOO United Kingdom purposes). I was going to add {{Rename media}} to the local file's page, but I'm not sure how to best rename it. All of the above, however, is based upon the assumption that the Commons file is OK to keep. If it's not, then there would be no need to change the file name. The local file is still being used in an article which means it's not eligible for WP:F5. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

RfD relisting of "Pakistani actors and actresses" nomination vs "Chinese and Japanese names of the United States" nomination

Hi there Steel1943. Your relisting tool seems to have choked on the nonstandard formatting of the long Pakistani actors nomination. I can't tell from context whether you meant to relist the actors, the Chinese character redirects (my nomination) or both. Do you mind checking Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_July_5 and Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_July_15 to see what needs to be done manually to fix those pages? At the moment they both have errors. Thanks in advance for checking this. (talk) 02:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Well, that was the oddest error I've ever seen with the XFDcloser tool. Everything should be good now. Steel1943 (talk) 03:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm sure it was just a one-off problem with the actor nomination's nonstandard formatting. Thanks for correcting it. (talk) 03:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi there Steel1943, today is 15 July 2019! It says Mon Jul 15! 2001:56A:774D:8F00:5CD1:336B:2588:BF1E (talk) 01:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Huh? Steel1943 (talk) 01:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

GameplayofFinalFantasy listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect GameplayofFinalFantasy. Since you had some involvement with the GameplayofFinalFantasy redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Floquenbeam 2#Support

Hi Steel1943, I refactored the indenting on your !vote at this RfA - also (unusually) I moved you from first-supporter-that-has-been-retracted to second-supporter-that-has-been-retracted for technical reasons (some of the bots and reports off RfA get mad when the first entry is not a numbered !vote). Just wanted to let you know what happened, and make sure you knew it was not to change the substance of your input (if you think it did - please let me know!). Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 20:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  • @Xaosflux: No worries there. Those bots can be some finicky weirdos sometimes; even when one tries to do right by the bots, one still breaks them. Steel1943 (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)