User talk:Steel1943/Archive 8

Add topic
Active discussions
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 15

Penny for your thoughts

Have I correctly understood the meaning of your username? Jehochman Talk 23:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


I know what WP:TPO says, but I'm using WP:IAR here, as these users have used irrelevant arguments. They simply imply WP:IDONTLIKEIT as being a reason for not moving the page. I'm also going to request a change to WP:TPO for this soon, but do you oppose to WP:IAR? I'm not going to reinstate it now.Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

also, I know IDONTLIKEIT is for deletion discussions, but it's basically the same situation here.Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • FYI Steel, I filed a report at WP:ANI concerning this. -- Calidum 21:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Calidum: Yep, that would have been the other venue in which this would have been reportable. Well, so much for my comment below; I'll check out the report. Steel1943 (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Qxukhgiels: I don't oppose IAR, but following it also comes at the price that most likely, the community will disagree with you (which has happened in this case). Either way, I would recommend that you either request the closure on WP:ANRFC or stop reverting the edits on Talk:Woodstock; at this point, the talk page edits would be reportable on WP:3RR, but I'm going to hold off on that since you have stated you will stop, and that's enough for me. Steel1943 (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
The majority of those editors are not thinking it through, and I think the community would agree with that. It's their PT, and I don't think, as famous as this event is, that it is the PT for most of the world. Do you disagree with that?Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Qxukhgiels: At this point, since a report has been filed on WP:ANI, you would probably be better off asking any questions or stating any concerns there in an effort to state your side for the community to see. Steel1943 (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


Lua error in Module:Language at line 248: Parameter 2 is required.Lua error in Module:Language at line 248: Parameter 2 is required. I just looked at your user page for the first time. Very interesting, especially that you like "depreciating" unused templates. Well, you could try "deprecating" (no letter I) them instead: templates are not WP:CHEAP you know! I think it was you who suggested {{deprecated template}} (not {{depreciated template}}) to me (at RfD).

Beyond that, have a happy new year, eh? Your humble gnome Si Trew (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I presume you realise I was being rather sarcastic. Sincerely, thanks for all the hard work you do at WP. I for one appreciate it. Si Trew (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Si Trew, yeah, all has been good. Ironically, I ran across the "deprecated" vs. "depreciated" issue earlier when I was trying to change some section headers on WP:CSD as well. Other than that, just getting a bit fiery over the fact that the title creation blacklist hasn't been fully functional lately, resulting in titles that are on the blacklist being created anyways. (About half a month ago, I asked for titles that have any instance of two consecutive apostrophes to be added to the blacklist; it was, but now the software that enforces the blacklist is having intermittent functionality issues, causing title cremation havoc, so to speak ... such as the RfD nominations today ... well, at least one of them.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I've taken that one to CSD, if it's the one I'm thinking of. But I bet it is declined. Si Trew (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Were I you, I should uncross them all. I have put reasons on the R's talk page, quoted reasons, quoted at RfD and quoted the RfD at the talk page. In short I have buttonned every hole. So it is bound to be rejected; a racing certainty yesterday was (although that is more suspicious and I still need to dip my toes into that one since I think there's some interested party dipping in there). Persuasion is better than cure, or whatever the doctor said, but often to present a fait accompli as I said at RfD earlier gets it rebuffed. Better to pretend you don't know and need help, sometimes, than quote chapter and verse. (I have had security guards help me away with stolen goods that I couldn't lift onto the van, by asking their help: long story, but basically psychology says "nobody would ask us if he were stealing it". Me: "Do you want to check the receipts?" They: "Nah, you're alright.") I am a very clever idiot. Si Trew (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Blow me down, it did get deleted (''A World Transformed'' ). That should give you a precedent, at least. Si Trew (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Si Trew, Yeah, I saw it got "R3"-ed ... Shocked it got deleted for that reason though, considering that the redirect was 2 months old ... Steel1943 (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I put your statement that it was only valid for 3 minutes on the talk page of the articlepage when I nominated it for CSD (and referred it back to the RfD discussion). You can see my exact words (I can't!) as an admin if you look at its talk page, but something like "I realise 14 Nov is not recent by usual XfD standards, but in fact this was only valid for 3 minutes before the page move, and the chances of it being referred to internally or externally in that time are slim". Still amazed anyone actually read the talk page, despite the admin instructions telling them to. Si Trew (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Smashrooms etc

Nice work with the mario bros. redirects, most of them seem to have gone red. I have been quiet about these to let them go delete by default (and obviously you can't close them yourself) but nicely done, can't see why someone searching for "Smashrooms" or "The Smashrooms" should be WP:SURPRISEd to end up there. Better off being red. I am an inclusionist by nature, and one of the reasons I lurk at RfD is to turn redirects into articles, sometimes translate them (I did a few the other day from French) but sometimes things are better off red. Si Trew (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Ugh, I just reminded myself, one needs to be done from PNT that needs translating from Hungarian. That will be a struggle. Excuse me for not linking – purposely I am not, so as not to clutter "What links here" etc. Si Trew (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Si Trew, there seems to be quite a few bad redirects directing towards video game-related articles, probably due to Wikipedia guidelines being near nonexistent back during its infancy. Like, for example, Halo (series) has probably the better part of 5-10 redirects directing towards it that really should not exist. Steel1943 (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
So I see. Will you please stop cluttering my nice clean RfD pages with your perfectly correct nomiations! It was nice and clean before you started! Si Trew (talk) 08:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Colorado Springs (disambiguation)

Feel free to tag the disambig page for deletion (or use MfD) ... but first converting it to a redirect, then tagging it for speedy as an invalid redirect seems a bit deceptive. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 22:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  • @Barek: I disagree since I believe that it would be eligible for G6 in another way if it were reconverted to a disambiguation page; {{db-disambig}}. Besides the primary topic, all other entries were partial title matches. (If the redirect did get reconverted to a disambiguation page, my next edit would be to remove all of the partial title matches, which would have left the primary topic sitting at the top with no other entries on the page.) That, and I'd rather not bother the community with going through a 7-day deletion process with something that seems so uncontroversial; if it's controversial (since you seem to think so), I'd rather the community have to deal with the misleading redirect existing. Thanks for your time and consideration. Steel1943 (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
If you feel the disambig qualifies for speedy under G6. feel free to tag the disambig for G6. I will allow another admin to review that. However, by first wiping out the content and leaving only a redirect, then tagging because what you left is an invalid redirect - it's misleading at best. That would be no better than someone turning any article to a redirect to some other article, then tagging it for deletion as an invalid redirect. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 23:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Barek: So, I performed the edit I said I would if it was reconverted to a disambiguation page, then you reverted my edit. I follow a guideline, then you revert me. No administrator in their right mind would speedy delete the page with that much text on it. If you feel so adamant to protect a page that obviously doesn't meet MOS:DAB standards, that's on you. Good day. Steel1943 (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Seriously? Your argument is that blanking it first helps it to qualify for speedy? You don't see the obvious misleading nature of that action? I admit that I should not have made the second revert from when you stripped out all the inappropriate partial name matches, and I apologize for that second revert - but I feel the first was entirely justified in reverting your bypass of process for the sake of convenience. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 23:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
@Barek: At this point, I understand your stance about your first revert, and respect it, even though I disagree with it since I believe I was following process, given that I do not know of any guideline that states that a speedy is not allowed if the previous few edits put the page in the state that made it speediable, provided that the previous edits were justifiable and following process themselves. However, the second revert; thanks for the apology. Also, since someone else reverted your revert, I'm going to go ahead and tag it with {{Db-disambig}} with the state it is in now and see what happens, and then accept whatever that outcome is. Steel1943 (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

"US" versus "U.S."

WP:USPLACE does not discuss the question of US versus U.S.
Where in the Wikipedia style manual might we truly find guidance on that specific point?
Thanks.  Doc – DocRushing (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC).

WP:NOTUSA. -- Calidum 15:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
@DocRushing: Calidum beat me to the answer; I knew I said the wrong shortcut right after I said it. Steel1943 (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
WP:NOTUSA does not require either the use of U.S. or the avoidance of US.
However, it does in part offer this comment:  "Some major American style guides, such as The Chicago Manual of Style (16th edition), now deprecate U.S. and prefer US".
Does any of you know of any unequivocal requirement that we specifically must use U.S. or avoid US in an article at the Wikipedia?
Thanks again.  Doc – DocRushing (talk) 00:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC).
It also says U.S. has been the dominant form. While there is no rule explicitly stating is the periods, it's a well observed convention on Wikipedia to use them. -- Calidum 05:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @DocRushing: As far as I know, that is the only Wikipedia page that mentions any requirement in regards to the "US" abbreviation (so if you desire, feel free to revert my revert; I will not re-revert you). If you believe that there may be an issue with the way that the guideline is worded, you may need to being it up on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style regarding the section WP:NOTUSA leads to. Steel1943 (talk) 05:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Marshall Eriksen

Template deletion process

Hello, wanna discuss about the template Template:Programmes broadcast by Zindagi. Since nomination, no one had even discussed as till now. Plus the dramas aired in it are syndicated Pakistani TV soap opera, no fresh or self created material airs here. Though it's clear redundant. So here, whether discussion would be closed or still keep it? DerevationGive Me Five 16:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

  • @Derevation: I actually have no opinion about that template either way. I asked the question regarding its redundancy at its TfD nomination so whoever closes that discussion will have a clearer idea why the template is redundant (which I didn't feel was accurately described in your initial nomination.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
@Steel1943: Sir, Pakistani channels have their own template of their television dramas. So here in Zee Zindagi, ONLY SYNDICATED OLD DRAMAS BEEN TELECASTED . No new show of their self has been aired. Read that article and ping me. Thanks again

DerevationGive Me Five 06:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

  • @Derevation: The comment you just posted here would be better placed on the template discussion. I actually have no interest in voicing an opinion on it; I asked the comment "redundant to what" for your benefit and the discussion closer's so that it is clear what you believe is redundant. Steel1943 (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Lightning in a tropical cyclone

I've closed the longstanding RFD for Lightning in a tropical cyclone as no consensus with an unusually detailed rationale. Basically, nobody wanted to keep it, but there wasn't consensus on what to do, so I've taken a bold step of un-redirecting it and immediately sending it to AFD to get input from people who don't often show up at RFD. I'd really appreciate your input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lightning in a tropical cyclone, where I've given a strong suggestion that people pick between the RFD-favored steps of deletion or retargeting to lightning. I'm attempting to notify everyone who participated in the RFD (that's BDD, Ivanvector, Inks.LWC, Guy1890, Steel1943, and Thryduulf), but if I missed someone, please do the notification for me. Nyttend (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

RFC on primary topic

This issue has been discussed many times already, as you can see at WP:PDAB. NotUnusual (talk) 02:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

  • @NotUnusual: Awesome, I just asked what is considered a "perennial proposal" on many of the Village Pump forums. I just closed the entire discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
    • A lot of editors have participated in the Thriller RM. When it closes, you could follow up by proposing that the guideline be changed to correspond with the result. NotUnusual (talk) 12:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @NotUnusual: Now that I know about WP:PDAB's existence, I'd rather not take the route of restricting primary topics solely to articles with titles that contain no disambiguators. Instead, I think it would be more valuable to our readers if parts of WP:PDAB were merged into the section which WP:PRIMARYTOPIC redirects so that they won't have to go to a different page to find this information. (Compare this idea to the current state of WP:DIFFCAPS.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to have to note this but required if turns out to be community banned user: SPI on User:NotUnusual In ictu oculi (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Pearlasia Gamboa

Last month, you participated in a deletion discussion for several redirects to Pearlasia Gamboa. All participants were in favor of deletion for several of them, but three were convoluted. The majority were in favor of deleting each one, but these three got one don't-delete each, and the whole discussion was difficult to assess; Bromley86 had a good description in calling it "this whole convoluted and, frankly, nuts area", and the two most helpful votes were split between deletes and don't-deletes. Since none of the redirects are outright harmful, I figured we'd get the best result if I just kept them and immediately relisted them; I've created new nominations for them at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 4, and your participation would be welcome. Nyttend (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bob Ives (racing driver), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages UJ and Top Gear. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

  • UJ is probably intentional, since its meaning is not clear, nor is its definition on the disambiguation page. So, I'm leaving it. I'll fix Top Gear. Steel1943 (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Nice work

Not sure how you managed to find these really old unconnected talk pages, but I'm glad you did! Cheers.--Mojo Hand (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

  • @Mojo Hand: Thanks! I may reveal my secret after I get done tagging some more (though the secret could probably be discovered...) Steel1943 (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Guild of Human Resources Practitioners

Delete the talk page 'when you wish' - there was a red link on the List of Livery Companies at the time (and see the exchange on the talkpage thereof). 'Noting what could be found so far' if anyone wished to pursue the subject further (and 'not all WP kites will fly'). Jackiespeel (talk) 10:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Opinion on WrestleMania 32

Hi! I'm not sure if this is the right person I should be talking to, but I'd like to see an opinion regarding that article mentioned above. Since 2006 (before me and @CRRaysHead90: even joined here), people have been creating WrestleMania articles in advanced of one year (Take WM 23 when it started). They always marked them as stubs and expanded them later on. Now, InedibleHulk, LM2000, and starship.paint are saying that the article doesn't even meet WP:GNG even though it was marked as a stub and secondary sources are available. TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 10:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I know I've said this before, but you pinged me here, so I'll reiterate. If secondary sources are available, and the article needs secondary sources, and you want the article to exist, use the available sources to say something notable. This could be the largest attendance and gate in WrestleMania history, according to Forbes. That would count. There's a fair bit of other easily accessible stuff.
In the time it took you to write and cite this here, you could have improved the article. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:13, February 19, 2015 (UTC)

Technical request

Regarding this, shouldn't it be left to an admin whether to accept or decline? Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  • @SNUGGUMS: Move requests on WP:RMTR can be moved to the talk page by anyone. That, and if the move had been processed by an admin as a technical move, I would have immediately requested a revert due to me personally finding the move request controversial. (Might as well save us both time.) Steel1943 (talk) 06:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Do tell why you feel it would be controversial. I have rarely (if ever) seen any other biography article on Wikipedia that uses quotation marks within the title. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @SNUGGUMS: In the almost 12 years of that article's existence, it has never been at the title Weird Al Yankovic. I mean, I would think that if it should be there without a second guess, it would already have been there at least once, especially given the subject's level of notability. I mean, I would think a move without the quotation marks (or at least a discussion, given that the page currently has move protection) would have happened by now if it were destined to happen. Steel1943 (talk) 06:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Interesting..... it just didn't seem conventional for nickname use in article titles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @SNUGGUMS: I cannot say that I've seen it before either, but if someone else (such as an admin) would have completely denied your request without starting a discussion, I may have started the discussion myself. I'm honestly a bit curious on what the consensus will be on this subject's article title. Steel1943 (talk) 06:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Queensgate bus station

I have replied to your comments at Talk:Queensgate bus station; I hope it aids your understanding. A word on language: "This is actually not exactly true" read like you were accusing me of being somehow dishonest. Please try to remember to assume good faith if you are going to wade in. (talk) 11:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  • I was doing was detective work, since I am quite familiar with how the confusion happened in regards to the move request. But, would my intentions be clearer if I had reworded my "not exactly true" to "not exactly the case" so my lack of a lack of assuming good faith is clearer? And also, I tried to use the word "probably" as often as possible to make my good faith assumption as clear as possible. Steel1943 (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes. I appreciate the clarification. Cheers, (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Felling mine disasters

Hi Steel. There was a discussion over splitting Felling mine disasters last autumn which was closed off last December. Thanks for removing the incorrect template, but unless you are wanting to restart the discussion I've removed it from the main page as well. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Martin of Sheffield: I have no interest in doing so. I've just been working on fixing or removing incorrectly placed templates of the such (which results in sometimes moving the template to the article from the talk page, as what happened here.) Anyways, thanks for letting me know! Steel1943 (talk) 23:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Ghosttown (song)

This is now at WP:RMTR. You've opposed the technical move, but apparently someone else already put it at that title. If you still object, do you want to open a move discussion? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

  • @EdJohnston: Yes, but right now, that's not my primary concern in regards to that article. My current concern, as seen in the following two diffs: (1 and 2) ... is that the move was a cut-and-paste move that needs to be fixed/reverted. Steel1943 (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Just letting you know that I've responded. Apologies for the inconvenience. The cut+paste isn't something I've really done before and it won't happen again. ---Another Believer (Talk) 06:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@Another Believer: In regards to the cut-paste move, no worries. It will probably get fixed here shortly, if it hasn't yet. (By the way, the link in your edit summary didn't work.) Steel1943 (talk) 07:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. It works for me... Did you include both lines (the full URL)? ---Another Believer (Talk) 07:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
@Another Believer: I meant that linked URLs don't work in edit notices. I thought you had attempted to link it with double brackets, but my eyes and memory deceived me. Steel1943 (talk) 07:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Gotcha. ---Another Believer (Talk) 07:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Histmerging the Main Page

I've opposed your histmerge request at Meta, saying that we ought not go deleting the Main Page without consensus first, and one steward has come by and agreed with my position there. In order to avoid a stalemate, I've started such a discussion; see Talk:Main Page#Histmerging the Main Page. Nyttend (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

  • @Nyttend: Thanks for the notification of this discussion. I probably will not participate in it though; I figured that if there were any red flags that might appear regarding this request, it would have been done so by a steward on the board which I posted the request, and it has. Steel1943 (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
@Nyttend: However, I have advertised the discussion on the RFD nomination. Also, I too am curious what history merge tool User:Ajraddatz is referring. I am quite aware that this history merge can break Wikipedia temporarily (thus, the reason why I left it in a steward'a hands to find additional red flags), but if this "tool" can merge the histories without taking down the page, the page downtime could be adverted. In fact, I'm going to inquire about that tool further on the steward'a board; now, I'm even more curious. Steel1943 (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Good idea. The opposition I expressed at Talk:Main Page is a completely different issue (I don't think merging the revisions would help, even if it weren't disruptive), because of course the opposition I expressed at the stewards' page isn't relevant if this tool does what it sounds like. And thanks for clarifying your position on ultimately deleting this redirect; sorry for misunderstanding you. Nyttend (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)



I have just seen your message. However, I need some help as I accidentally created two pages before. I would like to delete the page - Draft: Jozef Matejka, and only keep the page for Jozef Ján Matejka . I don't wish for both to appear. Can you please give me advice how I can delete the draft page (Draft: Jozef Matejka?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikoma 93 (talkcontribs) 17:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:REQPROTECT listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:REQPROTECT. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:REQPROTECT redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Tito Dutta (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Nintendo NX

If it really is too early for the article, then Project NX and Nintendo NX should exist as redirects to a section where the subject is mentioned until the draft can be moved back into the proper place (then the redirect can be deleted for the move). SNS (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

  • @SNS: I completely agree with you in regards to the company being a valid target until more references are established. However, it looks like someone recreated the article at Nintendo NX, so at this point, especially given Nintendo's popularity (I should know; I've been playing games developed by Nintendo for over two decades), I'm probably just going to merge the two together and leave the page in the article space. Steel1943 (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Super Mario and links to "high fantasy"

Hey Steel, I don't know if you read my reply on my Talk page yet, but I looked into this and did not see any discussion on the article Talk page nor did I find any in the Talk page archive. You seem to have gotten emotionally invested in this as you've referred to a simple Wikilink or use of terminology as vandalism[1][2], when its a content dispute at most about, of all things, a video game. OK, granted its a popular one and been around for a while, but its still just a video game. WP:AGF, I haven't looked into your edit history, but this is the kind of thing that I've seen Editors get topic banned over at WP:ANI. I'm just saying that as a few friendly words of caution. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

  • @Scalhotrod: See here, here, here, and here. Steel1943 (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
    • No worries, I'm not saying that its not frustrating or that its high quality content, but in the grand scheme of things there are far worse things to worry and be pro-active about on WP than an adverb or two in an article about a video game. There's a fine line between WP:STEWARDSHIP and WP:OWNERSHIP in the minds of some Admins that's easily crossed. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you! 2

  The Template Barnstar
I'm thrilled with the improvements you've made to {{Rfd2}}. Your edits will make discussion and closing of redirects clearer and easier. Thanks so much! --BDD (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography#Preferred disambiguator: "actor/actress" or "pornographic actor/actress"?

  • I think you misunderstood my rationale. I didn't say the discussion was about one individual article; what I said is that that particular article's talk page is where the biggest discussion about the topic is taking place, and it's too complicated to have users making the same arguments on different related talk pages (would you want to keep doing that?). Erpert blah, blah, blah... 09:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @Erpert: I completely agree that it is best to fix discussion forks regarding the same (or, at best, similar) topics from happening; however, in this particular case, it seems that the focus of the discussion you closed (which I participated in, by the way) is more about establishing a guideline for a disambiguation standard, whereas the discussion you referenced is about a concern with one specific article (and the primary focus of that discussion seems to not completely relate to the disambiguation question asked on the WikiProject talk page.) If you really feel that the two discussions are related, it would probably be more appropriate to close/move the discussion you referenced on Talk:Aja (actress) to the discussion you closed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography. Steel1943 (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I'll wait a day or two for merging then unless the original discussion picks up; it's pretty quiet over there today. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 22:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Kick (association football) has been nominated for Did You Know

Robert Downey Jr

Did you not notice the useful function of this redirect that you swapped out? By omitting the period at the end, in works in templates that add a period after. Let me know if you see a problem with that. Dicklyon (talk) 04:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

  • @Dicklyon: I did notice, but it's technically incorrect since the period is part of the article's name, and thus in my opinion should be "clickable" (rather than utilizing a redirect.) However, I do agree that the double period looks odd. I may, at some point, edit some of the applicable hatnote templates to add a parameter that allows the automatically-generated period to be omitted manually. Steel1943 (talk) 07:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
    • The double period is more incorrect than the technicality of whether the period is inside or outside the blue highlight. Dicklyon (talk) 15:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Kick (association football)

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Title (EP) revert

I did not check the edit history before reverting your edit, but found that it was you who reverted the initial change, so I'm here to briefly explain. You are correct in that the difference between album/EP may not be clear to all readers, which is why there is a hatnote atop Title (Meghan Trainor album) that points readers who might have been looking for the 2014 release to the EP article. However, since "EP" is a very specific and clear term, it is incredibly unlikely that a reader would end up at an article disambiguated as "(EP)" if they did not intend to find the 2014 release with four songs. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Or, more simply: not every reader knows what an EP is, but every reader knows what an album is. Those who looked specifically for "EP" do not need a hatnote pointing them elsewhere. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Lauren Hill

Sorry about that - I missed the recent news about her. - Peripitus (Talk) 21:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk show

It seems to me that the general thinking is that being "related" doesn't necessarily mean a spin-off or a remake, that shows could be considered "related" because their similar production and connection. For example Late Show with Stephen Colbert would not exist if The Colbert Report never did, making it a crucial factor of its production. I'm not completely sure. The rules have spoken against it but I've seen it done here for years (mainly on talk shows) without being taken down or challenged. I think it should be open to a wider debate. Grapesoda22 (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

  • @Grapesoda22: I full-heartedly agree that there seems to be confusion regarding what is "correct" for these infoboxes. In all honesty, my edits have fallen in line with, what I believe, falls in line with the description of the parameters as explained at Template:Infobox television. However, in regards to our understandings on what is related or a spin-off, our opinions seems to differ. In regards to The Colbert Report vs. Late Show with Stephen Colbert, yes, I do agree that Stephen Colbert's introduction into the late-night scene would have never been possible without the fame he acquired via The Colbert Report, but in regards to the shows being directly related, since they are not produced by the same company or as part of the same series of television shows, I would disagree. In my opinion, the way the "/doc" file at Template:Infobox television/doc isn't explained clearly enough to differentiate the concerns we seem to have. Steel1943 (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Well lets start a wider discussion and gather a consensus. Grapesoda22 (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Queen Victoria's redirects

My poin was that if we moved the attribution to Victoria, Queen of Great Britain we could delete Queen Victoria (died 1901) too, as it is not useful, apart from keeping the attribution.--The Theosophist (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

  • In my opinion, it doesn't really matter where the attributions on a redirect that was formerly an article end up, as long as they are on any plausible title that is still set up as a redirect towards the intended target. Steel1943 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:04, 29 April 2015‎ (UTC)

Shields, Pennsylvania

Do not delete this redirect. Info added on article page per your demand. See comment on discussion page. Charvex (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

"This user tries to leave Wikipedia, but finds that they can't do so…"

It would be nice if you improved your grammar in this headline statement. Charvex (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

  • You can blame the wording of {{Can't retire}} for that. You may need to edit it or gain consensus on Template talk:Can't retire to get that to change. Steel1943 (talk) 04:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "This user has tried to leave Wikipedia, but cannot do so." English is not my native language, but I believe this is an improvement. Perhaps you can do better. You should take responsibility for templates you personally choose to use, especially on your own talk page. The grammar is a reflection on you. Bien amicalement. Charvex (talk) 08:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you. The minor flaws in Wikipedia are what give it its charm, and this is one of them. I'm happy to show it off. Steel1943 (talk) 12:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Grande Seca redirect

I posted a comment in the redirect discussion. As mentioned there, feel free to delete that Grande Seca redirect. The original article had those apostrophes, so I moved it back then to the current name, as the apostrophes were and are not really needed there. PMLF (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


There was recently a deletion debate which you took part. The debate continues on the talk page of the article (see talk:Melee). Please join the debate so that a consensus can be reached on the initial issues of whether it is appropriate to include the maintenance {{coatrack}} at the top of the article Melee. --PBS-AWB (talk) 17:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Removing unnecessary transclusions

Hi Steel, since you specialise in doing so very many small and tedious tasks, HERE is something in which you might possibly be interested in. Thanks. (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the unnecessary transclusions. But I have reverted your page moves of the old Templates for deletion log pages to the corresponding Templates for discussion name because these are archived discussions held under the old name. Most (if not all) of these discussions are primarily related with deletion. As such, they should be kept as is and moving them over amounts to refactoring of the comments. It would have enough to just create redirects from the current naming series (which have now been created through the move reverts). Happy editing! DL9C (talk) 14:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

BTW I wholly agree with the moves of pages in the WT:AFC subspace to the draft namespace. DL9C (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! You probably figured that part of that is to make the drafts easier to locate for new users since the WP:AFC process now has editors by default search and create the new draft in the "Draft:" namespace. Unless its there, editors new to Wikipedia may not be able to find the existing draft if its in the "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/" namespace. Steel1943 (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) *@DL9C: There's no harm on moving these archived discussion pages to the newer baking convention. In fact, using the new convention is actually helpful, especially if someone tries to search through the archives by using "Wikipedia:Templates for discussion" instead of the "Wikipedia:Templates for d" wild card search that I see set up everywhere. In fact, if somehow those templates I replaced with hatnotes somehow get reverted, since that transcluded template is set up to use the "Wikipedia:Templates for discussion" namespace, there could be some link issues on those templates: I was in the process of fixing it by moving all of those pages to the "Wikipedia:Templates for discussion" namespace. Since links to pages only appear black when they are on their own page and not a page that is the target of a link which is a redirect, those links will now appear clickable, even when on its destination page. For this reason, I believe that it is more helpful to have the pages in the more recently-named namespace. (I am also currently off-and-on in the process of doing this with the "Votes for deletion" and "Pages for deletion" pages as well since them not being in the "Articles for deletion" namespace has the potential to have discussions lost or unaccounted for since the "Articles for deletion" uses "(2nd nomination), (3rd nomomation) etc." in their page titles; that work is a bit more tedious since all incoming links have to be fixed prior to the page moves.) Steel1943 (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi again. I just wanted to bring to your notice that there are many talk pages listed at Special:PrefixIndex/WT:Votes for deletion whose subject pages have moved to the AFD name but the talk pages remain in the old location! (talk) 09:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

thank you

for the star. :) Grapesoda22 (talk) 00:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Book talk:War Book talk: Volume 1

If I just salt the page, will it break the bot? I mean, I don't care, but it's liable to be re-requested. WilyD 14:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


There was nothing improper about it. With that page deleted, I can rename Badults (TV series), an article which I incidentally created, as Badults. David-King (talk) 23:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
@David-King: Umm... Did you read my closing statement, or Safiel's nomination statement? We both agree with you. Steel1943 (talk) 23:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I want to be credited with having created the article. I poured more effort into creating this article than I should've done so it's the least I can ask for. David-King (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
@David-King: ...and you will be; attribution travels with an article when it is moved to a new title. I saw you created Badults (TV series) on 15 September 2014. When the article is moved to Badults, its edit history and the proof that you created the article will travel with it. Steel1943 (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
As I said to Safiel, you've heard what I want and I'm kindly asking you to not let me down. I was of the understanding that the page creator would be the author of the redirect page. In deleting the redirect and ONLY THEN carrying out the move did I think that I could remain as creator.David-King (talk) 00:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


Hello, Steel1943. You have new messages at WilyD's talk page.
Message added 19:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

cyberpowerChat:Online 19:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Lua/Modules

As requested in the discussion, this is to let you know that I have closed it as delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Shree Radha Damodar Sanskrit Vidhyapith move request

Steel1943, can you take a look at my comment at the move request? If you don't have any objection I'd like to go ahead and move the article to Radhadamodar Sanskrit Vidyapeeth as a non-controversial move (or, WP:IAR if you will), especially since the subject area doesn't seem to have many editors given the lack of comments at the talkpage and activity levels at WP:NEPAL. But I will wait for your input. Abecedare (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 23:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Question about archiving

Hi, Steel1943 - did I not close the following AN/I correctly? Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Wikipedia:Administrators.27_noticeboard.2FIncidents.23Inappropriate_Actions_and_behavors_by_Editors_Padenton_and_Msnicki Was there something else I should have done? --Atsme📞📧 15:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict × 2) @Atsme: As far as I can tell, it looks like your ANI close was a proper one. You were just pinged because I linked your name in my "done" mark on WP:ANRFC (which is needed for that section I edited to be archived.) If anything, I would have taken that ping as a compliment, given that I confirmed that you closed the discussion!   Steel1943 (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I do, I do!! Thank you! It makes me smile.   --Atsme📞📧 16:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Number sign

Hello, Steel1943. I may be missing something obvious – but I can't see the connection between "number sign" and "committed identity". The user committed identity is a cryptographic hash, but that is nothing to do with a hash sign or hashtag, and it does not include the symbol # anywhere. Again, sorry if I am missing something here. Wdchk (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

  • @Wdchk: In all honesty, your guess is as good as mine. Since I don't utilize a committed identity, I cannot say I'm sure myself. I added that entry to Wikipedia:Number sign since the former target of WP:HASH (which was Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Number signs) previously had a hatnote that said:

    "WP:HASH" redirects here. For user committed identity, see WP:Committed identity.

    I added the entry because it seems that there might be some sort of connection (given that someone else placed that hatnote), but I'm not seeing it. Steel1943 (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Wdchk: In fact, now that I'm looking at it, it may make more sense to just move the hatnote over to Wikipedia:Number sign and remove the entry that you are referring to all together. Steel1943 (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, in my opinion you could put that hatnote on Wikipedia:Number sign. A user searching for "WP:HASH" might be looking for use of the hash sign in Wikipedia, in which case they have landed on the right page; or, they might actually be looking for the use of committed identity in Wikipedia, via a thought process that involves knowing that a committed identity is a hash – in which case, they have come to the wrong place and need to be redirected. Then you could remove the list item for committed identity to avoid an incorrect association between number sign and committed identity. That would work. Wdchk (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

XXX Beer

Many, many breweries, right around the world, produce a beer called XXX (or XXXX, or other variants. Not something to be entered here in each individual case, quite apart from the Spam aspect. The general statement that strong beer is often called "XXX", with a reference to the section of an article explaining this, is quite sufficient. Quite different if it was part of an actual (notable) brand name itself.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict × 2) @Soundofmusicals: Thanks for posting this here: I was in the process of writing on your talk page, so I am glad that you aren't a fan of this edit war either. Anyways, the entry: it's a valid entry that meets MOS:DABMENTION (I checked the article before I transferred the entry over), and WP:SPAM refers to content in articles and external links that are pure advertising. This example on the disambiguation page, as far as I can see, isn't restricted by WP:SPAM, and isn't advertising just because it is mentioned and identified; it's an entry on a disambiguation page that meets MOS:DABMENTION and helps readers figure out if that is what they are looking for. Now, if someone were to write a huge advertisement article for their brand of beer, that I'd get trigger happy and slap a good ol' G11 speedy deletion tag on it. Steel1943 (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Must admit I originally reverted this one as a knee-jerk reaction, but I hope you can see the more considered point I tried to make above - the brewery concerned IS notable, and has its own article, but "XXX" seems to be the name of a variety or label of their beer rather than part of the name of the brewery - in this case I don't think this is a helpful line to go on a dab page, especially under "other uses" when the main fact (that XXX is often used as a brewers mark) is made already at a more conspicuous juncture. So many breweries have an "XXX" label - and I don't think we want this dab page to turn into a list of brewers. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
@Soundofmusicals: Well, I, too, would hope that neither of us want Wikipedia to turn into a advertising site!   However, obviously, that is not what I'm trying to do, and that is what you are trying to avoid. However, throwing my personal opinions aside, here's a couple of consensus-established policies behind my decision, first and foremost being WP:NOTCENSORED; if it was, nothing for non-age of majority humans would be listed here. And I agree with what you are saying behind the commonly-placed "XXX" that several brewers use: that fact alone validates the usefulness of the entry I posted on the disambiguation page! Readers might arrive to that page truly looking for the subject on Molson and then arrive there ( see the lack of description of the "XXX" subject at that article, but I digress.). I think that trying to remove this entry based on the reasoning you presented (in regards to what you were saying previously about WP:SPAM) is akin to trying to nominate the article Sprite (soft drink) for being a drink brand of The Coca-Cola Company or Microsoft Office for being a brand of product created by Microsoft. Steel1943 (talk) 01:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Not talking about censoring anything (VERY obviously). If the Molson company were the only brewer using "XXX" as a label for one of their brews - or even one of a small band of brewers in this category - then you might have a point. The connection of "XXX" to any particular brewer is nothing like the connection of "Sprite" or "Fanta" (as softdrink names) to Coke - these are well known brand names in their own right. "Microsoft Office" is sometimes shortened to "Office", and if we had a dab page for "Office" then including a line directing to the Microsoft Office computer software this might be justifiable. Again, that's not a lot like the situation here. Sure you can see the differences yourself, without my labouring them. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
But, either way, that entry being there or not being there isn't the "end-all" for me, so I'll leave it be. Steel1943 (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Soundofmusicals: I'm not worried about this anymore, given that the mention is so quick in the article anyways that I'm not sure how helpful it is for out readers anyways. Steel1943 (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


Do you mind explaining what this is supposed to mean? The full page history is still there. --Midas02 (talk) 03:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not. First of all, the additional change by an IP, was consequently nullified by Boleyn, resulting to a zero difference in the page content. Secondly, you're talking about a cut-and-paste move, when I am reverting to an older version of the very same page. Therefore I'm not copying content between pages, and I'm just restoring old page versions from before that user started doing his cut-and-paste. That's all perfectly legitimate. --Midas02 (talk) 03:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
So, how does that remedy the broken edit histories? The edit histories are still broken. Steel1943 (talk) 04:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


Pleasure! – Paine  01:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Double delight!

Hi Steel1943, I have just created two new backlogs that you are interested in working on (according to what you say on your user page)! They are at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Old AFC submissions and Wikipedia:Requested moves/Misplaced XfDs. These were created because backlogs accessible only via special pages tend to get ignored. Having a project page makes them get noticed especially since they can be tagged as a {{backlog}}. The talk page may also be used for useful discussion. As you will know, the {{Special:PrefixIndex}} markup was used, which ensures that they never need to be updated. Feel free to expand the lead of the second one as I think it's a bit too lacking. (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

R with history

Hey, Steel – I seem to remember you asking me something related to this awhile back, and I wondered if you were aware of {{R with history}}? It can be used when there is substantive page history and the redirect is not the result of a merge. – Paine  12:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Dunno what to say

...other than again, you will be missed. Maybe you could create a new position for yourself – something like "Wikipedia Template Consultant"? Anyway, you're the knees of the bees, my friend. Cya in the next life. Thank you! and Best of everything to you and yours! – Paine 

  • Thanks Paine! That means a lot to me. In fact, I really cannot quit Wikipedia altogether, but sure as heck am going to try this time, given my thoughts. However, if you ever want to talk or would like my input on something here, feel free to ping or email me; I have decided that I'm going to check my email and notifications once a week (at least for now) until I have completely moved on ... if that ever happens. I'm just basically done with proactive edits. Steel1943 (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)