Open main menu



Tagging a lot for WP:G6 as obvious namespace errors at the moment... Steel1943 (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion if need be. Steel1943 (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. I'll look though that category when I have the time. I'm more interested in seeing how these will be merged first. -- Tavix (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
My plan is to merge the ones that get speedy deleted into a level-4 header category, and change all their headers into level-5s. Steel1943 (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry ChristmasEdit

  Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas and a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year 2019!
Hi Tavix! Thank you for all the hard work and effort you put into Wikipedia. God bless! Onel5969 TT me 14:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Functionality has to come firstEdit

The function of a page should not be interrupted by a discussion. I shudder at how many links we have to the redirect, and you want to break them all for that philosophical conversation. Utilise the talk page as required, but do not break functionality. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

You can still use the redirect, just click on the link. The tag is required per WP:RFD#HOWTO. Users of the redirect need to know there is a discussion that could effect the redirect moving forward, which is much more important than a minor inconvenience of having to click through. -- Tavix (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Tavix!Edit

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


Hey Tavix, I saw you deleted this. If the content is not itself in violation of WP policy, can you userfy it in my userspace so I can put it back into the Wiki? The article title is in some navboxes and I would prefer not to have to reinvent the wheel if the list is decent. Any help appreciated, and thanks. Montanabw(talk) 19:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Montanabw: It was simply a redirect to Pow wow#List of pow wows. Here is what the list looked like at the time of the redirect, which existed until you removed it in April 2017. -- Tavix (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Notice regarding Template:Tfd relisted and Template:Cfd relistedEdit

Hey Tavix, I just wanted to give you a heads-up that I'm planning on nominating Template:Tfd relisted and Template:Cfd relisted for deletion. My reasoning is because the two discussion forums WP:TFD and WP:CFD do not utilize that method to relist discussions to a point where using them could break edits made by bots to those forums. (I've had experience creating a "relist" template for WP:TFD once ... the same one you created ... but the idea was shot down in lieu of using the existing practice.)

So .... since I notice that you are the creator of both, I'm more or less letting you know before I nominate them in case you have any desire to either delete them per WP:G7 or find a way to make them able to be utilized with current relisting procedures at WP:CFD and WP:TFD. Steel1943 (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I would prefer them to be kept. CfD does not relist often, but when I was active at CfD (as late as 2017), that is the template I used to relist. I'm not going to dig through the logs, but it looks like it was still used as recently as last year per User talk:Marcocapelle#CFD relist. For what it's worth, it's still mentioned at WP:CFDAI as the relist method. I have never been active at TfD, but I think I remember creating the TfD one to start a discussion so all the XfD boards with daily logs would relist the same way, but I don't think I ever got around to starting that discussion. I think that one should be kept too because I'd still like to have that discussion one day, and I firmly believe this relisting method to be the superior way to do so. -- Tavix (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, I found a way to utilize {{Cfd relisted}} while following currently-established relisting procedures at WP:CFD: See here. And also FWIW, I agree that the method used at RfD is definitely the most efficient of all methods that exist for XfD discussion pages that do not utilize individual subpages for each nomination ... but yeah, trying to have the community to utilize such a template elsewhere seems to be an uphill battle, especially since the template would break the bots that manage the subpages and sometimes automatically close discussions for deleted pages. That, and RfD seems to be one of the only XfD forums where daily subpages' transclusions have to be manually removed when completed. I guess RfD is kind of like the indie company with a good idea trying to take on the big guys. 😂 Steel1943 (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Ma Jolie (Picasso)Edit

Please return this to the original title with the date (1912). I'm trying to stay calm here, but I'm simply flabbergasted that any admin could think that Ma Jolie (1912) was an acceptable title under our policies. What does this convey to the reader???? WP:PRECISE, in whose name many crimes are committed, begins: "titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article". You titles completely failed to do this. In any case WP:VAMOS is clear that the first disam is normally to the artist (or sometimes to "painting"). Actually the best disam is to Ma Jolie (Picasso, New York), with the other going the same way. Who knows the dates?? I hope you don't do other edits like this. Please be much more careful. Johnbod (talk) 04:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, done those moves. Johnbod (talk) 04:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
@Johnbod: That looks fine to me. As a note, the fact that I am an admin is irrelevant to this situation because it was not an admin action. Please don't be bandying it around in unrelated contexts. -- Tavix (talk) 14:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:WikiProject CrapwatchEdit

It doesn't look like the discussion to delete that redirect isn't going to pass, and may even be closed early. But, as you know, since the redirect was added after the discussion stated, If the closer doesn't agree to closing the discussion in a different matter, it could potentially be a case of WP:DRV for the original discussion. (Anywho, that's my 2 cents on the whole matter, considering that I don't think Wikipedia:WikiProject Crapwatch had adequate discussion since it was created during the discussion and added after the discussion started, so I'd argue that the discussion was not properly closed, but I'm choosing not to be the one to start that dialogue.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

  • I'd like to see the discussion play out first, DRV seems more trouble than its worth IMO. I'm confused why you withdrew your delete !vote though, especially since it still seems like you believe the redirect should be deleted. -- Tavix (talk) 21:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
    • ...I do, but I see the argument for "speedy keep" based on the way the discussion was closed, so I did what I felt I had to due to the way our guidelines are currently set. 😐 Steel1943 (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. I'm not withdrawing, but I am fine with a concurrent or subsequent DRV discussion depending how it plays out. -- Tavix (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) FWIW, I restored my "Delete" comment. Steel1943 (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


Could you do me a quick favor and delete User:Steel1943/common.js? I'd just tag it and have another admin delete it, but I can't tag it since it's a ".js" page. Steel1943 (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Steel1943: JS pages can be CSDed the normal way by putting the CSD tag in a JavaScript comment. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  Done. I can't recall tagging a .js page before, so you've piqued my interest. I just tagged my .js for G7 deletion using Twinkle. While the template didn't appear as usual, it still showed up in the correct categories so an admin would still be able to find it. -- Tavix (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I have firsthand knowledge: I recently U1ed user:pppery/pingremind.js a userscript I created. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 13Edit

You closed the RfDs French Federation of Undersea Studies and Sports and Spanish Federation of Underwater Activities as 'Keep', despite there being only one objection raised after being relisted. I don't believe that is the correct decision and I'd like you to re-open the debates to allow a close which reflects the debate.

Rather than trouble you, I initially simply relisted the TfDs and addressed the point raised by the sole objector. However, you have now closed the RfDs as 'speedy keep'. I believe this is also mistaken, as the previous RfDs (despite being relisted) were closed with one objection to nomination for deletion. These redirects have no value whatsoever, and ought to be deleted, rather than remain as a constant temptation to move the articles to a non-existant English translation (which happens sometimes through a mistaken reading of WP:AT). It is not helpful to stifle debate by your rapid closures. I would be grateful if you would please revert at least one of your your closures and allow debate to take place. --RexxS (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I might have closed them as "no consensus", but I felt that the one objection was a strong argument for keeping it so I closed it as such. Either way the result is the same, so I don't think it matters much. You had over a week after the objection was made to address the objection made but you neglected to do so. I am declining your request to relist because the discussion had been open for over two weeks and garnered little discussion and I do not think it being open longer will attract more attention. I am usually lenient on requests to relist, but subverting the usual process and unilaterally renominating the discussions did you no favor here. You may appeal my decision at WP:DRV if you wish. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
We are all volunteers here and have other things to do beside refute objections on TfDs. The objection was a weak argument as nobody would think to use a made-up translation to access either of those articles. They only exist in the literature as their names in French and Spanish or (more commonly) as their respective abbreviations. The result is not the same, and I do think it matters. Nobody would close a re-nomination as "Speedy Keep" if the earlier nomination had been "no consensus". It seems that you've used your mistaken first closure to justify your second one. I'm not interested in you doing any me favours: I expect you to use your admin tools for the benefit of the encyclopedia and I don't need nonsense like "subverting the usual process and unilaterally renominating the discussions did you no favor here". That's not why the community grated you those tools. I assumed that a simple renomination which addressed the objection would have been a less bureaucratic route than DRV, but it seems I was mistaken. --RexxS (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Since it matters to you, I have done you one favor: I have changed my closure to "no consensus to delete". Note that these are RfDs, not TfDs. It sounds like we disagree on what's best for the encyclopedia, so I'll leave it at that. -- Tavix (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm sorry I mistyped TfD for RfD. I assure you I understand the difference. It does matter to me because if somebody renames Fédération Française d'Études et de Sports Sous-Marins (the actual name of the organisation and correct title per COMMONNAME) to French Federation of Undersea Studies and Sports (a made-up translation that is not found elsewhere) – as happened again recently – then I'm faced with cleaning it up, often unable to simply revert the move. If I can get consensus on deletion, I might eventually be able to get the titles salted and avoid the problems. --RexxS (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for French Federation of Undersea Studies and SportsEdit

An editor has asked for a deletion review of French Federation of Undersea Studies and Sports. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. RexxS (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Spanish Federation of Underwater ActivitiesEdit

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Spanish Federation of Underwater Activities. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. RexxS (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Tavix".