Jump to content

User talk:Steel1943/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!
Steel1943,
Have a great 2020 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

   – 2020 is a leap year – news article.
   – Background color is Classic Blue (#0F4C81), Pantone's 2020 Color of the year

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2020}} to user talk pages.

– Utopes (talk) 04:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


Ref desk talk

The item in question is from a year ago November.[1] Obviously long past usefulness. Thanks for zapping it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

A bear hug for you!

WikiBearHug
We have had, recently, a fair number of in-depth, passionate, but civil, disagreements at RfD and I feel like I should give you a WikiBearHug because I want you to know that, though we disagree, I appreciate your contributions to RfD, your patrolling, and, where applicable, your assistance. Doug Mehus T·C 00:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @Dmehus: I appreciate that, and I hope that you don't take anything that I'm telling you the wrong way. I've just been dealing with such subjects for almost a decade now, and I see the patterns that need to occur to make both the community happy and to make Wikipedia a place that can be used as it's intended to be used. (But, of course, that doesn't mean that I'm always right, and I know I'm not; I could clearly be with consensus sometimes, all the time, or almost none of the time. We all just kind of learn as we go.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Steel1943, Hi, I've responded to your comment, but with my clarification, I'm wondering if you might be able to remove, climb down from, or otherwise refactor your reply in which you wrote, "...@Dmehus: So, I never once cited or linked WP:RS, so please don't claim that I did; obviously, a third party search engine search is sufficient. And I don't know where in the heck you saw me disagree that "...commonly used redirects targeted to the proper article with the correct information can be very useful." With that being said, I'm going be very blunt with this next statement: Please stop claiming that I said either the opposite of what I said or that I said something I did not because I'm getting to a point where I'm considering requesting a two-way interaction ban between us. Thank you. (...)"? See my updated replies. Doug Mehus T·C 21:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
@Dmehus: At Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 31#Gavaccino, you said: "There were some interesting points between Steel1943 and I above, but in the grand scheme of the discussion, I don't think it's essential to this redirect's discussion, particularly I've since changed my !vote." Oh wow, what a self-centered statement that comes off as a borderline WP:OWN issue. Wikipedia is a community project, not the Dmehus project. I could honestly care less that my statement had any bearing on your vote; discussions are assessed by closers who implement the consensus and arguments presented by all participants in the discussion. And to invalidate my comments in this regard as inapplicable to figuring out the fate of Gavaccino ... considering that I did my best to stay on-topic until you decided to completely disregard the contents of my statements and then change yours to make it seem like I didn't respond to yours appropriately and, whether intentionally or unintentionally (I really don't care to find out which) have made me sound like an idiot with the way I responded to the comment you changed inappropriately, I have no desire to withdraw my statements and no desire to change anything else that I have stated in that discussion thus far. In fact, at this point, I highly recommend that you do your best to not interact with me anymore as your continuous lack of comprehending discussions, rather-misguided and unclear responses, and now apparently attempts to cover up your tracks to make editors sound like idiots makes me realize that it is not in the least productive to interact with you. Please do not mention me, please do not thank me, and please do not directly respond to my edits ever again, as I plan on doing the same. (I understand that unless there is consensus for it, I cannot stop you in participating in discussions that I start or participate in and vice versa, but please do not reference me directly in any of such discussions ever again.) Thank you, and please respect this. Steel1943 (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
(Struck out parts I have retracted.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • @Dmehus: I realized that I unintentionally broke what I said above when I mentioned you on Roseguill's talk page. After self-reflection, even though I still have some the opinions I mentioned above, I seen now that me trying to uphold some sort of makeshift interaction ban is rather childish on my part. You really are trying your best to WP:AGF with the actions you are performing on Wikipedia, regardless of what you do that I agree with (or not). If you are okay with me striking out the part above where I want you to stop mentioning me in discussions and vice versa, I'll do so. Steel1943 (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
    Not a problem. Strike out whatever you need to, and I was hoping we could come to an amicable resolution here. You have made my day because I respect you, your knowledge of policies, and your experience. It was difficult for me to avoid interacting because of our shared participation at RfD, but I can respect your wishes not to thank you if you wish. Tavix has similarly requested not to be thanked (unless warranted, i.e., if I create a page or a redirect, which Tavix infers I want deleted from a discussion somewhere and deletes per G7, then I would thank Tavix to show concurrence) and not ping them on replies because they monitor discussions in which they participate. Doug Mehus T·C 01:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
    I am not involved whatsoever in this discussion so it is inappropriate for you to bring me into this. That being said, I am very sympathetic to the points Steel1943 is making above. -- Tavix (talk) 02:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

MOS:ORDER

AWB isn't compatible with MOS:ORDER it seems. Whenever someone does some sort of cleanup using AWB, it automatically moves the hatnote up and short description down. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

  • @Fylindfotberserk: Oh dang. Seems that one tool is now compatible with MOS:ORDER (Twinkle: It used to by default post cleanup tags at the top of the page if the first line was anything other than a hatnote, which I guess has now been resolved), and AWB either isn't or never has been. I would have never known since I have never used AWB to tag pages with such templates. But, that's certainly good to know! Steel1943 (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't use AWB either. My observation is based on how many times I have to manually restore MOS:ORDER after someone uses AWB. I wonder why some tools are not compatible with an established MOS. They should do something about it. Nice chatting with you though. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 06:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
@Fylindfotberserk: MOS:ORDER was changed after the last time that AWB was released. If you want AWB behavior to change, you can probably leave a comment at WT:AWB. --Izno (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping Izno. It seems a discussion is going on regarding this. As for me, I'll keep correcting that manually. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Category:Redirects from catchphrases / Template:R from catchphrase

Category:Redirects from catchphrases (and Template:R from catchphrase) have been nominated for merging with Category:Redirects from slogans (and Template:R from slogan, respectively). You are invited to comment on the discussion at the categories' and templates' entry at Categories for discussion. Thank you.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

CSD delays

You recently wrote "obvious speedy deletions now seem to take days longer to execute without you [RHaworth] holding the admin toolset". Can you give me some examples? As I write this, CAT:CSD is empty. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

No, I just want to know if there's a general problem with CSDs being backlogged for days, because I haven't personally seen this. If there is a problem, we need to look at getting more admins with good experience of assessing new pages. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: Fair enough, and my apologies that I chose to be harsh with my first responses. Well, that, and I'm not sure if in such a scenario, as you mention above, if "more" admins is the answer. I mean, on the English Wikipedia, we have what ... 1000+ admins ... and only an honestly small portion of them actually perform administrator tasks? Maybe there needs to be stricter criteria about in what instances an admin has to retire their admin title (such as lack of use, etc.) have to be implemented. But then again, even if some more newly-appointed admins (or even a rallying of current ones) were be be asked to stated they would dedicate their time to a task, we're all just volunteers here who are kinda all renegades in our right and edit in WP:WIKITIME. This place is like free will to the max (but, of course, bad choices lead to blocks.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Comment I, too, have noticed CSD delays, and I miss RHaworth. He was a good administrator. Good thing we still have Fastily, kingboyk, WilyD, and Ritchie333, though, who still seem to do a lot of the CSD mopping. Doug Mehus T·C (talk page stalker) 00:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

RfD close for Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 31#Christopher Wilson (reporter)

Hi Steel1943,

Regarding your close for Christopher Wilson (reporter), I'm wondering how you determined consensus to retarget to Christopher Wilson (biographer). Shhhnotsoloud argued it was ambiguous and not mentioned, both solid arguments, and Rosguill argued it was not mentioned. I argued it was not mentioned, ambiguous, and unnecessary disambiguation clarifier created by a serial sockpuppeteer my latter comments on retargeting. BDD and Narky Blert argued for retargeting, which is fine, and they had equally solid arguments. However, I still don't see a consensus. Even if you apply extra weight to their arguments in consideration of alternatives to deletion, that gets us to a no consensus. I personally would have no problem with you closing as no consensus as it was a sound close, even if a close close for a non-admin (I've done some close closes as well). This would allow you to retarget per BDD and Narky Blert boldly, but, like your rationale re: the white marble close, the result would be "no consensus."

Would you be amenable to amending your close as "no consensus" and retargeting boldly?

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 00:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

  • @Dmehus: "No consensus" was not an option since no one advocated that the redirect be kept as is. The "delete" comments were based on there not being mention of a "Christopher Wilson" at Rebel News. Multiple participants made arguments that the subject at Christopher Wilson (biographer) is also a reporter and an appropriate option for retargeting since the redirect could refer to Christopher Wilson (biographer) and not be ambiguous. Even one of the first "delete" comments acknowledged the existence of Christopher Wilson (biographer) and of it as a plausible option. The close was based on existing subjects on Wikipedia at the present time; if another subject is created later, the redirect can be retargeted to Chris Wilson (the target of redirect Christopher Wilson) as a {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} since that would satisfy the primary concern presented by the discussion participants, and there shouldn't need be another discussion for that. Steel1943 (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
    That's true Shhhnotsoloud did note Christopher Wilson's secondary career as a reporter, but also didn't say they endorsed retargeting. That leads me to believe one of too things, either that (a) they believed the disambiguation qualifier was of dubious utility per WP:R#K5/WP:R#D8 or (b) they believed it was an implausible search term and also of dubious utility per WP:R#K5/WP:R#D8. Rosguill's argument was still strong, as were mine. "No consensus," as I understand it, means what it says it means, when there's not a clear enough outcome to effect change. It doesn't dually mean it can't be used when "keep" is not an option. Like I said, I have no problem with you boldly retargeting post-close to effect the problematic current redirect target of Rebel News because of that. But I just don't see it how there was any consensus to retargeting here. Doug Mehus T·C 00:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
    Note too that Rosguill even closed the Halo 7 and Halo 8 redirects as "no consensus," which meant they stayed where they were, but it was problematic without a mention, so either Rosguill or Tavix (can't remember which) retargeted them to the two Nine Inch Nails albums boldly. Doug Mehus T·C 00:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
    I should add, too, for clarity that I didn't think the close would need to be backed out. Since the retarget has already been done, I was just thinking that, effectively, you would be able to modify your result of your close to "no consensus" and then update the talk page manually, since we're not a bureaucracy and all. Doug Mehus T·C 00:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Dmehus: In the discussion, there was clearly consensus for retargeting to Christopher Wilson (biographer) for the reasons I already stated above. Unfortunately, I really don't have any further elaboration to provide (including Rosguill's and Shhhnotsoloud's comments as I already addressed them) since I answered your inquiry about my close, which I believe also adequately answers any points and concerns brought up in your previous inquiries. If you feel the need to dispute this further, feel free to WP:DRV this as I am unconvinced that my close was improper. If so, I will participate by copying my previous statement regarding why/how I came to the "retarget" conclusion. Steel1943 (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
    Okay, thanks for your response. I wouldn't say there was a consensus to retargeting, based on the discussion, though we could've still retargeted boldly after the close. It's probably not worth taking it to DRV because the the only outcome I would be seeking is to overturn to "no consensus" or to "relist" for another week. Given that only BDD responded since the last relist, I'm not sure it would generate much more participation. So, we'll probably just call it one of those "agree to disagree"-type situations. If and when there's another Christopher Wilson that's a journalist, that redirect can be converted to a separate article. Doug Mehus T·C 14:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
    No hard feelings, I trust, since you even offered for me to list this at DRV but I've decided that we should get some clarity on whether a no consensus outcome is still possible even if, practically speaking, it had the problematic effect of remaining targeted to the current target. I've reiterated what I said here, so it will good to have some solid answers. Doug Mehus T·C 01:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for Christopher Wilson (reporter)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Christopher Wilson (reporter). 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. Doug Mehus T·C 01:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Black Swan (BTS song)

Thanks for the ping. I wasn't aware of the RFC you quoted. It seems the consensus was that WP:DABSONG trumps MOS:DABMENTION?

1) Perhaps this ought to be made clearer at WP:DABSONG (i.e. specific mention that WP:DABSONG trumps MOS:DABMENTION, rather than a link to an RFC hidden away in a footnote) so that others don't trip up (not blaming you! it's my fault if I have misinterpreted policy and you're just the messenger :))

2) My objection will have been based on a misunderstanding of policy and I'd be quite happy to reverse it and perform the move if you like.

Please ping me if you reply. --kingboyk (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

  • @Kingboyk: Honestly, it's probably best to let the discussion ride out the 7-day discussion period. Reason being ... you may or may not be surprised that to this day, there are still a good number of editors who disagree with the result of that RfC. Truth be told, I'm one of them ... but, at this point, since it has existed for so long, I just support it and move on with my day. But yes, I completely agree that these policies need to be updated in some fashion to make it easier to locate supporting information about how the current state of WP:DABSONG is a glaring exception to MOS:DABMENTION, WP:PRECISE, etc. Steel1943 (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
It's good to hear you say that, as whilst I was quite willing to abide by it, I can't say I agree with the outcome of that RFC either. I'm also grateful for your validation that the policies are unclear and I'm not a total idiot :) I'll "move on with my day" too. Thanks for the prompt and heloful reply - very much appreciated. --kingboyk (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Vandalizing Ebringen

May you stopp Vandalizing my article about Ebringen, please. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/47.7416/8.7395 And no greetings at all. --W-j-s (talk) 16:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Coxswains

Would you mind checking the talk page and the edit history of pages before you move them, please? For example, Talk:Brian Price (rowing) would have shown you that there are different naming conventions for coxswains than there are for rowers. Schwede66 04:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Sure. Consensus may always change. Just remember that a coxswain is not a rower, which was the point of the original move request. Schwede66 07:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
    • @Schwede66: I see that now! Gotta admit, I learned more about the sport of rowing in five minutes of looking at coxswain then I've ever known during my entire life! I thought a coxswain would have been called a captain or something ... and yep, they don't touch any paddle! (I may skip on the move request altogether since I cannot think of an alternative disambiguator if "(coxswain)" is out of the question.) Steel1943 (talk) 08:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

"ArchibaldAlexanderLeach" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ArchibaldAlexanderLeach. Since you had some involvement with the ArchibaldAlexanderLeach redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Steel1943. I note that you have requested speedy deletion of a number of WP:REDIRECT pages you created with the CamelCase format. WesternAustralia for Western Australia as an example. I'm happy to WP:MOP them up, but please do note Wikipedia's internal "cautionary tale" about a "similar kind of redirect". Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Shirt58: Thanks... I'm quite aware of the Neelix cleanup as I was one of the many who participated in the cleanup prior to the criterion being revoked. Thankfully though, I think I'm about done tagging most of potential problematic redirects I created in my first month or so editing Wikipedia ... considering that I've now been editing for almost 8 years now, learned a lot better since then, and am about 140,000+ edits wiser. Steel1943 (talk) 14:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
(One major issue I recall with the Neelix cleanup was that if I recall, in some of most of the cases, before he retired, he still supported the existence of some of the redirects and still created problem redirects. I don't have either one of those situations.) Steel1943 (talk) 14:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
...Either way, I think I got all of my year 2012 created CamelCase redirects tagged now. Happy to purge them. Steel1943 (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Quick reply to closed ANI thread

I did see your last comment, and the wording of the proposed close was clearer than my summary, so I think it was already addressed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

  • @Floquenbeam: Eh, I didn't see that specific distinction in either of the first two examples, but I saw the clarity in the final closing statement. So, I'd agree it has been addressed ... which I'd say is good since otherwise, that 4-months would be subject to broad interpretation, and who knows where any of us will be to respond to something said four months ago. Steel1943 (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion

Hi. Can you group today's redirects (football) aswell, I'm not sure how is the best way to do that. Thanks! Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Archie Kao

I have seen that you have done lots of edits on Archie Kao's page.

I lived across the street from Archie in 1982. My younger brother was good friends with him from 1980 to about 1985 when he left for college. I moved south in summer of 1982. But in summer of 1981 I was given a camera for my 16th birthday. I took lots of pictures I have about 50 pictures of Archie Kao and my younger brother hanging out. I have one picture my younger brother took of me giving Archie a ride on the handlebars of my bicycle.

My younger brother and I used to laugh when we would see Archie on the Power Rangers. My Younger brother told me about his Wikipedia page about 10 years ago and I though I might upload a picture of him to his page for the early years section. I never found one of him by himself always with my younger brother. Then one day back in April 2019, I came across a picture of Archie, his sisters and my younger brother. I then posted the picture stating that it is Archie, his sisters and the neighbor across the street. I never mentioned his sisters name or my younger brothers name.

That picture has been on Wikipedia almost a year. An article on a nerd website Slashdot dot com is running a story about how Wikipedia is the most trusted name now, and most responses are from people that have had things deleted just because someone didn't like them or there was useless information, or pictures of actors from movies, where the actor had no reference in the movie and was being delete just because of some spats with other editors on Wikipedia. I made mention that I had posted a picture of my younger brother to Archie's page and was up for a year and had no problems with it, meaning that it had passed the review part, being that I am not a trusted person on Wikipedia, which is fine.

It was 30 minutes from when I posted that remark that my edit to Archie's page was undone.

Can you review my picture edit and if you believe, I have not violated any rules of Wikipedia, redo the edit that was undone?

Thanks, NathanWoodruff (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Neptune

Hi! When you recently moved Windows Neptune, it appears that you inadvertently left the talk page behind at Talk:Microsoft Neptune. Are you able to remedy this? Thanks. wjematherplease leave a message... 17:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.


To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Ron Brown (U.S. politician)

Hello, Steel1943,

When you do a move, could you leave a redirect? This article had a number of redirects that now must be manually corrected. If there is a redirect from the former title, then a bot can fix a double redirect. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 04:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

  • @Liz: "This article had a number of redirects that now must be manually corrected." No, it didn't. Ron Brown (American politician) didn't exist until I created it by moving Ron Brown (U.S. politician) there ([2]; notice that the phrase "over a redirect" exists nowhere in that edit summary), then moved it back after changing my mind ([3]). Ron Brown (American politician) no longer existing is the equivalent to it being deleted per WP:G7. Steel1943 (talk) 07:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Oh, redirects, not links. I'll be flipping' honest, I sometimes hate that the bots that correct double redirects in the article namespace act almost seconds after an article is moved. (Please refer above to what I'm referencing: Bot(s) must have bypassed the redirects pointing to Ron Brown (U.S. politician) immediately after I moved the article to Ron Brown (American politician), before I reverted that move and suppressing the redirect at Ron Brown (American politician) per WP:G7.) There really should be a few minute delay on the bots correcting the redirects in case someone changes their mind, especially if the "new" title is a lot more erroneous than the one I created. Heck, I'm now considering starting a discussion to enforce these bots delay their double-redirect correcting a bit ... unless that's already been discussed somewhere, then I'm just wasting my time, I guess. Steel1943 (talk) 07:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

8AM

Hi. There's a problem with 8AM. Per the RM (at Talk:8AM (song) for the moment), the song is supposed to be at 8AM. Unfortunately, someone blanked and redirected the article in 2018.[4] Then a different editor basically duplicated the article at 8AM (maxi-single) in 2019, probably in good faith. The song and its history should be at 8AM and 8AM (maxi-single) and 8AM (song) should be redirects pointing there. The dab page at 8 A.M. is fine. Station1 (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

  • @Station1: I noticed what you are referring to, but here is my concern. If 8AM is targeting 8 A.M., then the edit history should not be there (8AM since the history should, in theory, remain at a redirect which targets a page which the history of the redirect pertains to ... meaning, in this case, the history should be at a title that represents either Final Destination (album) or 8AM (maxi-single), which would be a title such as 8AM (song). But I see what you are saying ... give me a few. (I'll be doing some move reverting, then I'll probably be opening a new RM; from what you are saying, and per that move request, 8AM (maxi-single) should be at 8AM per WP:CONCISE; I disagree with that due to my own opinion [thus why I want to start a new RM], but yes, we do have to start from square one and from the last point of consensus.) Steel1943 (talk) 01:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
@Station1: Okay, done. Please see Talk:8AM#Requested move 8 April 2020 for the move request I opened requesting to basically revert the consensus formed in the discussion you linked that started ... almost literally two years ago. Steel1943 (talk) 02:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. The only thing I notice is that the edit history of the later article (maxi-single) is now at 8AM rather than the edit history and talk page of the original article (song). In some cases that could be an attribution problem, but since it's only the tracklist and personnel list that were duplicated, I suppose that's not a major issue. Thanks again. Station1 (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
@Station1: From what I saw when I was comparing the edit histories of 8AM and 8AM (song), it looks as though they were/are duplicate articles with parallel histories. At this point, it may be best to just let the live article remain. Steel1943 (talk) 08:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:ROUNDROBIN" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:ROUNDROBIN. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:ROUNDROBIN redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Robert Peters

Just wanted to let you know why I removed Robert Peters (actor) from the dab page. There are several problems with it.

  1. Robert Peters (playwright), who is definitely notable, was also an actor. So Robert Peters (actor) could wind up as a redirect to him (in which case it may or may not be inaccurate), or at best would have to be a redirect to the dab page (where it would definitely be inaccurate).
  2. We don't know whether the current links to Robert Peters (actor) in 6 articles all refer to the same person, or up to 6 different people, one of whom may or may not be the playwright. (Yes, like you, I suspect they are all the same person who is not the playwright, but per WP:V, we don't know that.)
  3. Assuming there is one person, not the playwright, linked from six articles, why choose just one of those six in particular? Someone landing there will not necessarily realize the same(?) actor was in at least 5 other films, one of which might be the one being sought.
  4. There is no evidence this actor (if he's not the playwright) meets notability standards.
  5. DABMENTION was meant for situations where a notable topic does not have its own article but some substantial information about that topic is contained in some other article, not for bare mentions of non-notable topics. Station1 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • @Station1: I meant to respond to you about 24 hours ago, but holiday events got in the way. Here are my responses, with each item numbered:
    1. If you truly believe that Robert Peters (actor) should target Robert Peters (playwright), then go ahead and create that redirect. However, I will refer you to George W. Bush (painter) for a related example: The aforementioned redirect was deleted due to the targets lack of notability as a painter, even though there were no other subjects with the same name that could be considered a painter. I would have to believe that the subject with the nonexistent article is probably more notable as an actor than the subject at the playwright article. (With that being said, if this redirect is created to target to play right, all of the incoming link so that redirect will have to be renamed to a different title, possibly, for example, Robert Peters (American actor, born 1961) or similar per WP:NCPDAB standards.)
    2. Actually, I do know that all those links refer to the same subject. When I checked all of those links last week, I verified that they all refer to the American actor that was born in 1961. (Unfortunately, I had to verify that information with third-party search engines and IMDb, but all of the incoming links are accurate, nonetheless.) But yes, per WP:V, me doing so provide a bit of a conflict because it is obviously WP:OR, and I'm honestly not sure if the subject, as an article, would meet WP:BIO (but I am erring on the side that he probably would.)
    3. Regarding item number #3, I refer to you a combination of MOS:DABBLUE and MOS:DABMENTION. MOS:DABBLUE states that there should only be one blue link per line, and MOS:DABMENTION, of course, states that if the subject of the line is a red link, then there needs to be at least one blue linked article mentioned in the line that mentions the subject. For that one, my recommendation would be to possibly mentioned some more of the films is actor was in within the same line on the disambiguation page, but of course, not linking more than one per MOS:DABBLUE.
    4. I'm not so sure about that one, as I sort of alluded to in my response to item 2. Unfortunately, I am not much of an article writer myself, but I did do some research, and it looks like there may be some references present that state this subject has won multiple awards. This might prove that the subject is notable, but as I said, I'm not sure if I could whip up an article for the subject since again, I'm not much of an article writer (though I have in the past.) But even then, the entry's current state on the disambiguation page probably meets MOS:DAB standards.
    5. On the contrary, I have seen some cases where a subject which is mentioned in multiple articles but does not have an article themselves is put on a disambiguation page in this manner. That, and this subject had 4 incoming links prior to me discovering that these all referred to the same subject. I would think keeping this red link on the disambiguation page, as well as keeping the remaining red links in place, would encourage someone to write an article about the subject and do their best to have the article meet notability guidelines.
Also, for reference, I created the following Wikidata entry for the subject which we are discussing: D:Q90030111. In that entry, I included some instances of where the subject is found on third-party sites for reference. These sources might help assist determining and finding references to figure out if the subject is notable enough to have an article. Steel1943 (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Not a problem - it's hardly an urgent issue. Hope you enjoyed the holidays, or at least as much as one can under current circumstances. I didn't realize you had researched this person, although I suppose I should have based on the 1961 birthdate you used. It does appear to me now that this might be a notable person. If you have no objection, I'll write up a stub within the next few days and just stick a hatnote on it pointing to the playwright. That should take care of everything. If anyone thinks he's not notable enough they can always AfD it. Station1 (talk) 07:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

Information icon Hello. I noticed that you attempted to file a deletion discussion on the article Sobell Rail Yards Station but did not complete the process. Please note that, when listing an article for deletion, a discussion page needs to be made for other users to discuss whether to keep or delete the article. This is typically done by following the steps listed here. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

  • ...@LaundryPizza03: I'm sorry, but that's not happened. I did post the nomination on the RfD subpage, but I forgot to remove the {{Rfd}} tag from the redirect after I withdrew the nomination. Also, note the fact that the {{Rfd2}} tag I placed on the redirect was done by Twinkle; That means, in theory, that unless Twinkle royally messed up, a nomination should have been placed on the respective daily RfD subpage ... which I linked the proof that it did in the first sentence of this response. So, with all that being said, my "oops" for not removing the {{Rfd2}} tag after I withdrew the nomination. So, please do your research before you notice/warning tag me next time. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

RfD gone

I know you were using a script, but note that Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_April_4#❶ seems to have been relisted... to nowhere. — J947 [cont] 23:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Special:Diff/952312499

The rcat template explicitly mentions the use in main namespace, where subpages were used in the inital versions of Wikipedia. Category:Redirects with old history also explains the more specific rcat templates (that still categorise the redirect in the same category). 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Steel1943/Archive_17&oldid=1145989155"