This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I noticed you joined WikiProject Hotels relatively recently. I've been making some efforts to rejuvenate the project, and please feel free to contribute there if anything comes to mind. Also, please feel free to discuss matters at the project's talk page. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Glad someone took some interest to revive that WikiProject. I added myself midway through last year when I found that a lot of hotel-based articles were lacking information. I saw the work you did on the main page for the project: looks good! Steel1943 (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
When a UK building or institution is named after a saint, usually St is spelled with no period. See the British entries in Saint Paul's Church, for example. Are you OK with this article being moved if the first line is also fixed? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I have no objections. I was contesting it to ensure it was completely technical in nature. Steel1943 (talk) 04:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
In fact, I'm going to also undo my recent edits on that article, in light of this information. Steel1943 (talk) 04:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Reviewer & Rollback
I've gone ahead and given you both since you are obviously clueful enough. You might want to read the policies governing both (WP:REVIEWER and WP:ROLLBACK), however. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Reaper Eternal! I'll make sure to use these new privileges properly. Steel1943 (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
So there seems to be some confusion here. Firstly, you've put a redirect up for speedy deletion as T3, which only applies to templates. I've undone that. If you truly feel that this redirect shouldn't exist, please relist it at RfD. Secondly, you've then edited dozens of articles in order to replace the initial instance of the template with over a kilobyte of copy-pasted code, such as in this edit. Basically, this isn't necessary at all for articles of this length: on the Z page it adds nearly 50% to the total page size, for the sake of duplicating in its entirety (but with different formatting) the navbox located only one page length down (which you added yourself in August). We don't need two copies of the same code on every one of these pages, especially where one is hard-coded. Can you five that yourself by removing the duplicate hard-coded TOCs, please? I've got a plan for making pseudo-TOCs which link to index pages easier in future, which I'm going to work on now, but I don't think it's necessary in these cases. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I understand your point. Unfortunately, what you are doing at the top of the article is just placing a template in lieu of an actual TOC, and the template Template:MS-DOS games index is listed for speedy deletion since it is now an orphaned template (it was a redirect of another template). Also, placing a header/footer template in lieu of a TOC also causes the issue of a user having to do an additional "click" in order to go to where they need to go. Since the template it redirects to Template:Index of MS-DOS games is not used often at all (in fact, all of the articles in which it is transposed exist in the Template:Index of MS-DOS games articles only, there is no reason for there to be a redirect template to this template. What I did with my edits was change the template referred at the bottom of each article to the primary template, Template:Index of MS-DOS games, instead. Unless you can respond to this point instead of boldly doing anything on these articles, we might get involved in an edit war, which I am sure neither one of us want to be involved in. Steel1943 (talk) 10:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
However, I do have an idea that I think we can hopefully both agree on. I suggest we create an subarticle connected to Index of MS-DOS games that has the text at the top of each article, and then transpose it into each of the 27 other articles, greatly reducing the amount of data that is on each page. Steel1943 (talk) 10:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I see your point about redirect vs. Template now. I will actually completely take down that speedy deletion request (since trying to RfD a redirect almost always fails.) Steel1943 (talk) 10:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Never mind, you already did. Anyways, I hope you consider my proposal about creating another article as a subarticle to Index of MS-DOS games in order to reduce article file size. Steel1943 (talk) 10:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
While there is some truth to the argument that a navigation template at the top is beneficial (moreso in longer pages), there is no need to take literally the same set of links present in the navbox, transmogrify them into a pseudo-TOC, and then include both on every page. If you're going to present the same list twice, use the same format both times. Secondly, rather than using a header template (which is impossible on articlespace as it doesn't actually have sub-pages), I've just created {{TOC index}}, which makes it trivial to add what you've been adding without having to add nearly a page of code to every articles. As such, the best way forward would be to replace both the navbox and the copy-pasted code with a {{TOC index}} on every page. If you want to do that, give me a shout when you're finished and I'll speedy the old navbox templates as T3 (an actual case of T3, as they are hard-coded instances of code available elsewhere). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I see the concept of this template, and am already liking it. I was curious, since ... I started adding the crazy amounts of data with my TOCs on the Index of Windows games articles as well. Would you think that same template would be able to be used for that set of articles as well, or would a new one need to be created? (My knowledge about how to build templates is very minimal.) Steel1943 (talk) 10:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I see you've figured out how to adapt it. :) If you have any feature requests that would help with using this to replace more hard-coded TOCs, just let me know. Cheers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
For future reference, you don't need to nominate redirects to deleted targets at RfD - just tag them for speedy deletion under criterion G8. Thryduulf (talk) 11:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join WikiProject Hotels, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of hotels, motels and lodging-related topics.
To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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) 11:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
These articles are part of an index of articles, so the links to disambiguation articles are intentional. There is no issue. Steel1943 (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
However, I did go ahead and fix all of these. Steel1943 (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
D&D watchlist
Hi there! :)
First of all, I want to say a big "Thank you" for all the useful little edits you've been making to D&D-related pages lately. It really helps to have someone go in and fix little things that need to be fixed, because a lot of people don't have the time or inclination to go and do that sort of thing. So thanks!
As far as the WikiProject watchlist goes, thanks for adding things to that. I don't know how many people actually use it, but I for one find it tremendously useful. You haven't done this, but please make sure not to remove any pages from it, unless they no longer have anything to do with D&D. I do keep track of redirects, because sometimes people will turn a redirect into an article, or move a page, or whatever, so it's good to be able to see when that happens. I will generally only remove a page from the watchlist for example when an article is moved to a new name, and the old page is turned into a disambiguation page, or a new article on an unrelated subject, or just redirected to another unrelated topic. But if you have redirects or make any new pages, then please do add those!
So thanks again, and happy editing. Good to have you around! BOZ (talk) 04:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
No problem. And I saw the description on the watchlist, so I thought there might have been some sort of purpose for keeping all links and redlinks on that page. Makes sense. Either way, no problem. However, I might have a question or two from time to time, and I'm guessing you would be the one to ask, so you might be hearing a question or two from me at some point regarding these Dungeons & Dragons articles. Anyways, Cheers! Steel1943 (talk) 10:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
You got it! :) BOZ (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Ken Reeves (meteorologist)
Looks good to me! GiantSnowman 11:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
RE: Move request
Hi, thanks for sorting the move request, that's what i mean't i just didn't know what i was doing. D4nnyw14 (talk) 14:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Honestly Thryduulf, I wasn't 100% sure if it qualified for WP:CSD#R2 criterion when I nominated Concarril. When I was reading the descriptions of the two WP:CSD#Redirects criterion, it seemed like that was the one that Concarril would have applied for deletion. I closed the discussion due to the fact that an administrator deleted the redirect, and per their notes, agreed that it could be deleted for that criterion. I'll take a look at the discussion about this (since I'm curious of the outcome myself.) Thanks for the heads up! Cheers! Steel1943 (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
This will most likely be closed as a technical move request. Per WP:NCCAPS the trend is to use lower case in article titles unless we are dealing with a proper name. You might conceivably argue that Oberammergau Passion Play is a proper name, but see this book title where it is not all uppercase. Consider opening up a move discussion at Talk:Passion play. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
No worries. In this case, rather than opening up a discussion (since I honestly would have considered this a technical move, but I understand what WP:NCCAPS entails), I'm going to remove the uppercase for the word "Play" throughout the article instead. Steel1943 (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
...And actually, since I now further understand what WP:NCCAPS entails, I'm just going to leave it as is. No reason to change anything, or open up a discussion, if a Wikipedia policy is as clear as that. Steel1943 (talk) 02:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you that if you do lowercase 'Play' in the article title then the body of the article ought to match. It's just that I'm processing so many technical requests to change article titles to lower case that it sounds like the way of the future. When I see a request to go the other way (to upper case) it requires a pause for reflection. EdJohnston (talk) 04:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I understand your point. In addition, sometimes one cannot determine if a second word in a title is a proper noun even based on the context in the article itself. On that note, I'm going to, for the time being, hold off on my request to move this discussion to WP:RM since it seems like the actual issue is that WP:NCCAPS might need to be revised. Steel1943 (talk) 04:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
The way the relisting is supposed to work at WP:RM is that by adding {{subst:relisting}} you get something like this
(Discuss) Foo → Bar --Relisted. Apteva (talk) 01:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC) old reason for move followed by old sig. Somehow the bot knows to use the new timestamp instead of the old timestamp, but the listing should show relisted plus the actual reason for the listing. That actual listing has a google search in it now that has an equal sign in it that will flush the reason from the bot listing, which is why I dupped the time stamp before the link. Apteva (talk) 01:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Correction. The normal place to put the relist is right before the timestamp.
(Discuss) Foo → Bar Reason for move --Relisted. Apteva (talk) 01:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC) Apteva (talk) 01:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC}
Like the above. Apteva (talk) 01:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
If you haven't undone my edit yet, I'd like to see the proof. From what I saw on WP:RM, it was still showing the timestamp of the relist. Steel1943 (talk) 01:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Young Artist Awards
Hi. Just dropping a note to let you know I reverted most of your edits on the Young Artist Awards article. I completely understand why it's confusing (many media sources have made the mistake of confusing the Association with the Foundation which accounts for most of the confusion in the article), but they're two completely separate things..
The Young Artist Association is the "parent" association of both the awards and the foundation.
The Young Artist Awards are the awards for working child stars who are already successful in the industry, appearing in blockbuster feature films, television shows, etc (it's basically the equivalent of the Academy Awards/Emmy Awards for child stars)..
The Young Artist Foundation is the Scholarship fund for aspiring child actors, singers, dancers, etc, whose families are struggling financially and would otherwise not be able to afford a "performing arts" school..
I know this is confusing so I just didn't want you to think I was edit warring. I plan on making this much clearer within the next couple of days. There has been a slew of new media coverage clarifying the whole thing after the recent death of the founder last month, so just give me a couple of days and I can clarify everything on the article. I prommise. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 04:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I responded on your talk page. Steel1943 (talk) 04:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'm afraid I was one of 2 editors objecting to this Tech move due to the various other Lido Theatres, however this does appear to be the only Teatro Lido so have added a template at Talk:Lido Theater (Medellín). Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. I cast my vote in the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 15:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Wikidata
FYI my watchlist shows that you just made 49 changes to Template:Infobox person. Apparently that was due to adding interwiki links individually at Wikidata (d:Q6249834). I hope there is a way to add them in bulk, so an affected page only appears once on the many watchlists where a page is reviewed. Johnuniq (talk) 10:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Tell that to some of the bots who are currently programmed to do the same actions I took (Haha ... but seriously, there's some that do.) But, in all seriousness, there's a gadget on Wikidata that prevents human users, such as myself, from doing such edits ... which I discovered after you posted this message. The gadget allows users to integrate all interwiki links that are on a Wikipedia page on a language into its corresponding Wikidata entry. That would have been great for me to know prior to me adding all 49 of those interwiki links individually. Doh! Steel1943 (talk) 23:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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) 13:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.
JohnCD resolved the issue whilst I was still trying to follow the (incredibly disruptive!) series of unwarranted talkpage moves. GATechnical is blocked for three days for edit warring. Yunshui雲水 10:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
re: Allen Frances
In-so-far-as I am capable, I did what you suggested in your note [[1]]. I would appreciate your taking a look at the [[2]], [[3]], and [note] to see if I muddled my way through correctly. Thanks for your help.
--1boringoldman (talk) 05:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to send a response on your page about this; Long story short, some of the links you sent me did not work for me to see what you did, but I think I have a good idea based on what I saw. Steel1943 (talk) 05:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
re Allen Frances
Thanks,
I take your point about my neutrality. But the whole point of my doing it was that besides being too brief, the existing article was too much like fan mail. I have a Wiki article-writing friend who advised me how to be neutral, and I think I did that already as well as I can. I also use Wikipedia bios a lot in my other life, and am really put off when they are obviously bent one way or another. So, it's as factual and matter-of-fact as I know how to make it.
I think I'd like to take you up on your offer: "If you want to cancel the move or merge requests, you can let me know and I will "deactivate" those requests, if I am available." Cancel at will with my appreciation. And since I know nothing of how to be "bold," I appreciate the link. I'm impressed with the amount of thought that has gone into Wikipedia, but I must say that navigating around is a bit like the user manuals from the early days of DOS.
Thanks for the help!
--1boringoldman (talk) 05:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I recommend refreshing your talk page. Steel1943 (talk) 21:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I saw your reply now. I think the relevant question is whether including the subtitle helps users of the encyclopedia. I can't see any possible way that it does help users. Interested in science (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Honestly, here's the way I see it, and I know it would be up for debate (as proven here); the full name of the book should be able to be seen by the editors who need to know. However, the short version that was there before should definitely be a redirect to the main article with the long name for both historical reasons, and yes, because of the point you bring up as well. The majority of these books are known by their longs names when being purchased or looked up on different search engines, so it would make sense for Wikipedia to have the same names. Steel1943 (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Most people refer to these books by their short names. Please do not edit war over this. Interested in science (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
No edit warring necessary. For now, however, I'm going to have to leave what I had done done (since I cannot revert some of the moves I've done now), and whatever the outcome of that discussion ... well, we'll just have to see what happens. Either outcome, well, I'm glad a consensus will be formed. Steel1943 (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure what you are saying. Were I to revert you again, would you revert me in turn or not? It would be clearly against the edit warring rules if you did. They're quite clear about these things. Interested in science (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Since you have yet to specifically point out where the clarity is in any existing policy, it's apparently not clear enough for you either. At this point, I would recommend going to the discussion I posted on your talk page and not moving any of the articles for the time being; I'm not going to move them either during the time being while this discussion is happening. Steel1943 (talk)
The edit warring policies are indeed clear. When I reverted you, you should have discussed matters, instead of simply reverting back. That is how the project is supposed to work. Interested in science (talk) 22:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I am trying to figure out why you are continuing on with this trivial debate about whether or not edit warring has occurred. I have established that I'm not going to be performing any more moves while the discussion is happening. I'm stating that the Title naming policy is unclear. Like I previously established, both of our stances would be better discussed on the discussion I started on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Steel1943 (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, that discussion hopefully isn't going to be very long, because it turns out there is a guideline that contradicts you. Interested in science (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Since you failed at point out the policy to me, I have to assume that this conversation has turned uncivil. That is unfortunate. Steel1943 (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Either way, after I saw the policy that was posted in the discussion, I responded on your page. I now have no objection to the article titles being moved back to their shorter versions. I believe this discussion has concluded. This is why I love Wikipedia: consensus; I just wish the proof of consensus could be easier to find sometimes. Steel1943 (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
