Jump to content

User talk:Steel1943/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Hearts

I'm with you on the "football club" not needing to be in the hatnote, but here's what I was thinking. I think the biological organ (heart) needs to be given a direct link. Lots of little old grandmas are going to look for information on hearts at, well, hearts, and they're not going to intuitively realize that they actually want "heart" (people aren't born knowing about WP:PLURAL). Which, by the way, we're talking over stuff like this at WP:PLURAL's talk page, if you're interested. See you around! Red Slash 04:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Red Slash: I made some updates to the hatnote accordingly. I replaced the transclusion of {{Hatnote}} with {{About}}. I'm under belief that if a different hatnote template can be used instead of {{Hatnote}}, then it should be used; also, it allowed adding a description of the current article. That, and I don't know if you realized this, but when you basically did a pseudo-undo of my edit that you tailored to undo everything except the removal of the football club, you had returned the lowercase links, as well as the incorrect link to Heart (disambiguation) instead of Hearts (disambiguation). (Eh, it happens sometimes; I can't say I haven't had my share of oblivious edits.) And thanks for the heads-up about the discussion on WP:PLURAL; I have responded. Steel1943 (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, sounds good and looks good. I periodically just use {{hatnote}} whenever I have complicated hatnotes to put in, but the way you put it is fantastic. Also, hearts (disambiguation) should absolutely be merged in with heart (disambiguation), right? But good catch by you to see that they're not currently merged. I didn't even think to look. Red Slash 20:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
@Red Slash: Thanks! About the merge though, I'm not sure about that, though. There are other singular vs. plural sets of disambiguation pages that exist separately, such as Wall (disambiguation)/Walls (disambiguation) and Spy (disambiguation)/Spies (disambiguation). Consensus so far seems to leave these be. (Well, at least as far as I see, no one is either contesting them yet, or have formed consensus to change it otherwise if the singular vs. plural forms of the standard English words can have two entirely distinct disambiguation pages.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, then again Airplanes (disambiguation) doesn't even exist, so... I would keep them together instead of separate unless they're absurdly long, but I know some people don't agree. =/ Thanks again. Red Slash 20:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
@Red Slash: In all honesty, I think you're on the verge of a guideline update proposal. Here's a question for you that may add more to this thought: If a singular form of a noun has an article (not a disambiguation page) at its ambiguous title, and the plural form of the same noun ALSO has a has an article at its ambiguous title that is NOT related to the singular noun, should there be one or two disambiguation pages, and why? Steel1943 (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, never mind. Looks like you are already participating in a related discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Fed Up (disambiguation)

Hello, you did a tidy-up of my edits of the subject disambiguation page. Deleting four links, and removing categories. Please note, I discussed this on the subject talk page here: Talk:Fed_Up_(disambiguation)#deletion_of_some_links. I appreciate your comments. Thanks. Enquire (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Please forgive me if I am misinterpreting your actions; but it does rather seem that you wish to indulge in an edit war. The entire reason I have been making these edits is to make space to create space for the 2002 film. I have already expended way too much time and effort and making essentially no progress. You Sir, on the other hand seem to take a special responsibility to frustrate my efforts. You acknowledge that there IS another film with the same name, but insist on removing the not insignificant detail of the year of release. The precise reason I added the year 2014 is to avoid any possible ambiguity and to leave open space for me, or anyone else, to create a page for the film that was released 12 years earlier. Quite frankly, with so much work needed on constructive edits on Wikipedia, I find it strange and most irritating that you have the time and insist on making such a futile reversion.
Fed Up Enquire (talk) 02:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • @Enquire: Not really; I have no desire to participate in an edit war, nor do I have any desire to purposely cause frustration, as you state. I don't believe that the extra disambiguation is necessary due to the other article not existing, so I reverted the move per WP:BRD. If you desire to move the page to the other title, I would recommend starting a discussion via the WP:RM process. However, this aside, if the article Fed Up (2002 film) gets created, I'll gladly revert my edits myself; at that point, your move makes sense. Then, Fed Up (film) would be able to redirect to Fed Up (disambiguation) where the reader could decide and locate which article they are intending to locate. Steel1943 (talk) 03:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • @Enquire: I just had an idea that could possibly work for both of us, and may have me agree to your move: on the list of articles that include a link to Fed Up (film), are there any examples of that list where the link actually refers to the 2002 film and not the 2014 film? if so, I have an idea to update the disambiguation page, and possibly remove my contest of the current film article's title having the "2014" year in its title. If there aren't any in that list, if you could find a different article where it mentions the 2002 film (such as the filmography of an actor or director of the film), that would qualify for it to be disambiguated on the disambiguation page per MOS:DABPRIMARY. Steel1943 (talk) 04:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Because you thanked me

You thanked me for one of my recent edits, Steel1943, so here is a heart-felt...
 YOU'RE WELCOME!
It's a pleasure, and I sincerely hope that you enjoy your continued improvement of this inspiring encyclopedia! – Paine 

02:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited R.O.C., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roc (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Hmm, this bot has reported another intentional redirect to a disambiguation page that has a {{Rfd}} template on it, which causes it to be a temporary soft redirect. I think it's time to report this to the bot's creator. Steel1943 (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Cosmetic changes

Hi there Steel1943. I only just noticed this edit to Template:Cat main, but please don't do stuff like that in the future. Cosmetic changes like that put pages in the job queue for no reason, and that delays jobs that actually matter. If you really must make a change like that, put it in the sandbox and wait for the next time the template needs a non-cosmetic change. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 16:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  • @Mr. Stradivarius: When I performed that edit, I was quite aware of what I was doing. I did that so the transclusion count for {{Hatnote}} would eventually become accurate. The tool that is used to count transclusions doesn't count redirects for some reason. Once the job queue refreshed, the transclusion count for {{Hatnote}} would refresh as well. I was doing quite a bit of similar edits, actually: I was updating the transclusion count on the doc page until most, if not all, of the redirects transcluded in other hatnote templates were changed. (In all honesty, I wish the transclusion count tool counted redirects, then I would have had no reason to perform those edits.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
    The tool doesn't templates that go through redirects because if it did, they would be counted twice. Take a look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Cat main/sandbox, where you can see the tests I've set up in my userspace. And then check the tool results. My sandbox page is listed twice in WhatLinksHere, once through the redirect and once directly, but the tool correctly counts it only once. And if you go one level higher to Special:WhatLinksHere/Module:Cat main, you can see that the redirect information is lost altogether from WhatLinksHere, but the transclusion is still picked up despite having come through a redirect. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 23:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Talkback from Technical 13

Hello, Steel1943. You have new messages at Technical 13's talk page.
Message added 20:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 20:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: Loving You

To be fair, I only realized you had made some changes when I "undid" it, so I added the real chart where Loving You landed. Surely wasn't on Hot R&B/Hip-Hop and wasn't even top ten lol if you did add the chart before and I didn't know it (judging from always reading too fast), my apologies but I clearly thought I saw you still had that number two placement. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 05:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@BrothaTimothy: Even though, yeah, I didn't do any "undos" to your edits, I noticed this song's lack of notability as well. I'm thinking this article should probably either be deleted or returned to a redirect to Xscape (album). Steel1943 (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
@BrothaTimothy: Also, I didn't write the article; I only copied it over when it was incorrectly placed over the disambiguation page Loving You (which now has a rather weird edit history after a history merge). If you have any questions about the content I posted, I would recommend asking the content's creator, Ahmedunbreakabletato. Steel1943 (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Steel1943 this is a notable song as it charted we could update the article with now information but i've a lot of work to do so i'll work on it tonight Ahmedunbreakabletato 22:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC+2)

WP:TALKNEW

You ask the question in the history of the page "Undid revision 615192835 by PBS (talk) Why? You didn't create this section..."

See WP:TALKNEW

  • Don't address other users in a heading: Headings invite all users to comment. Headings may be about specific edits but not specifically about the user.

Please revert your revert. -- PBS (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh great, what have I stepped into? Fun times, it seems. I'll revert, withholding my current opinions. Steel1943 (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry

Sometimes I can't remember whether or not I thanked the editor in question, especially when there are more than one edit for the same article. Sorry. Just curious: which edit was it? Yours, Quis separabit? 19:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

"This user is busy with enjoying their permanent vacation from Wikipedia"' -- guess your vacation wasn't permanent, LOL. Quis separabit? 19:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) @Rms125a@hotmail.com: Edit: [1]. I know that the software used to permanently mark an edit "thanked" after a thank was issued, but now, that has seemed to disappear. I'm not sure why. Also, good catch on that word up there; I completely forgot to change it after the block I thought I was going to receive didn't happen. This place can be fun, but stressful at times. Steel1943 (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
"I know that the software used to permanently mark an edit "thanked" after a thank was issued, but now, that has seemed to disappear" -- exactly. It doesn't disappear immediately but apparently within a few hours, a day at most. Quis separabit? 20:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
@Rms125a@hotmail.com: Yeah, I'm not sure when the lag started, but I'm sure I've done it at least once. Anyways, the irony is that the vacation message I just updated ... Is getting updated again. I'm taking a nice, at least weak-long WikiBreak to chill out for a while. Cheers! Steel1943 (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Boom!!, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Boom! (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to ERH may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • * Equilibrium [[relative humidity]], a function of[water activity

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Good point

I've shelved/pulled the tech move on the Martinez dab. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

IPhone 6 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect IPhone 6. Since you had some involvement with the IPhone 6 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. CloudComputation Talk freely
CloudTracker 04:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Your move of Atomos (A Winged Victory for the Sullen album)

Hello Steel1943. Recently you moved a fully disambiguated album to the title Atomos (album). This is potentially controversial. For example, the record at Thriller (album) has been moved to Thriller (Michael Jackson album) after much gnashing of teeth (you can see a list of four move discussions on the talk page). Would you consider undoing your move, at least until such time as you can document that this is the current practice? There was a furor about 'partial disambiguation' some time ago and I think I even tried to close one RfC about it. The title Atomos (A Winged Victory for the Sullen album) may seem verbose but at least it is immune to being challenged on these grounds. If you don't want to perform the move, would you consider opening a move discussion to ensure you have consensus? Recently User:In ictu oculi made a request at WP:RMTR about Atomos (disambiguation) which is the reason I'm looking into this. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Hi Guys, in this case I don't think there's a problem about whether the album is at (album) or full name since there's no other album. I just put it to full name while I was restoring the Greek concept / Jewish magician as the dab page. The problem (if there is one, no biggie) is the other editor moving a dab page with two important classical world meanings in order to insert a new album, that's all. I have no objection to just (album), and might well have gone back and done it myself. Should have done in fact. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
OK then, both of you can ignore my request. IIO, thanks for explaining. EdJohnston (talk) 02:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Then that's good. Thanks both. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
EdJohnston & In ictu oculi, essentially, IIO explained the reason why I performed the move. Also, the example provided above regarding the "Thriller" album seems to be a bit of an exclusive case: usually, when I see more the existence of more than one article regarding an album of the same name (or any "disambiguator" of the same name, for the most part), I usually vote to have the title with the ambiguous disambiguator target a disambiguation page. The example where Thriller (album) redirects to Thriller (Michael Jackson album) is the most unique case I've ever seen; if a primary topic for a disambiguated title is determined, I would have thought that the ambiguous title would be the article's title. Seriously, I'm amazed at how unique that case is. Steel1943 (talk) 02:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Cuando los hijos se van (telenovela)

That's enough of transfers. The article you are trying to pass off as a television series, it is not. It is a soap opera created by Televisa. So if you insist on changing the title of the article, I need a good explanation. The disambiguation has nothing to do with the title.--Damián (talk) 10:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

  • @Damián80: First, I would recommend reviewing WP:OWN. Secondly, thank you for the kind explanation of a disambiguator I have never seen before in any article until now when I just tried to look up the disambiguator on other articles. Lastly, now that I know that disambiguator exists on other articles (like you basically failed to explain), my "give-a-crap"-o-meter on caring about that article or editing it again went down to negative infinity. Cheers! Steel1943 (talk) 12:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
...Except for the edit I am about to perform to remove the hatnote. Steel1943 (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Then I recommend researching it's a soap opera, because I believe that the introduction of the article says clearly, but anyway. The title is now well. Because this article is linked to Template:Televisa telenovelas 1980s.--Damián (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
@Damián80: See, the thing is, soap operas are TV series as well; I just didn't know until now that the "telenovela" disambiguator seemingly takes precedence in articles with cases like this. I'll go ahead and tag Cuando los hijos se van (TV series) with {{R from alternative disambiguation}}, and leave it. Steel1943 (talk) 13:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Let's see, there is no television series under that title. There is only the soap opera, and the two films.--Damián (talk) 13:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
And now where is the proof that there is a television series, that name ?. If you have an article that does not create ?. Instead of registering it as a redirect to a telenovela, the fact that Google says it's a TV show, does not mean anything. But anyway, I do not care. As long as you leave the article title as it is, all right.--Damián (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Damián80: I never said I had proof, nor did I ever say it was correct; I stated that the redirect is useful, which is the purpose of a redirect. And once again, I highly recommend you read WP:OWN since you once again have claimed ownership of the article. (The hatnote on the article doesn't aid readers in finding the proper article since the article has a disambiguator, and the disambiguation page exists.) Steel1943 (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
This redirection is unnecessary, there is no television series of that name. But I do not care, do what you want. No need to read anything, thanks.--Damián (talk) 13:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Damián80: That may be true about there being no television series by that name, but since search engines think otherwise and call the soap opera a "TV series", most likely, another reader will most likely look it up as a "TV series". Redirects are here to aid readers in finding the proper article or article section without trying to figure out the "right way" to look it up. So, it's not what I "want"; it's what I have seen due to how involved I have been with redirects and disambiguation pages over the past two years; I learned this through trial and error (and other editors getting mad at me for trying to break Wikipedia, lol.) But, on a related and serious note, thank you for creating as many articles as you have. In the two years I have been editing Wikipedia, not counting disambiguation pages, I have created only two articles, and one was just a removal of an unnecessary subject fork in another article. Steel1943 (talk) 14:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 August 29

It seems that the RfD was closed before I can answer your question. Anyways, I'm okay for the section to be merged to Mangifera.--Lenticel (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

A page you started (Cuddle (disambiguation)) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Cuddle (disambiguation), Steel1943!

Wikipedia editor SantiLak just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Good disambiguation page, keep up the good work!

To reply, leave a comment on SantiLak's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

MOS:TM?

Talk:'Hours...'. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi-hat, hi hat, high hat and high-hat

"... Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this."

Here's my first question about this: What made you think the page was created with typos and/or searches in mind...?...! Sardanaphalus (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Question

Why did you contest this speedy deletion? Catholicity and Catholic both redirect to Catholicism, so unless I'm misunderstanding something, CSD G6 should apply. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't quite see how that discussion applies, since it looks like it's about disambiguation pages that lead to two different articles, whereas Catholicity (disambiguation) leads only to one article (Catholicism), but okay, I'll PROD instead. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Steel1943. You have new messages at Talk:Catholicity (disambiguation).
Message added 08:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Widefox; talk 08:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: Regarding IPhone 7...

That is true, we do need some kind of standard because things like this can and should be terminated on-sight, and we do need discussion to achieve that end. However, the reason iPhone 7 exists is because someone believed it would soon be necessary anyway, so I think it's possible we could at least take care of the next few (say, up to iPhone 10) based on this discussion of which our user talk posts are part. It'd be an understandable pre-emptive measure and I think if we take it that far then enthusiastic newcomers and Apple fanboys won't be as inclined to worry about creating redirects for iPhone 11 and beyond (since they'll see we don't tolerate them so far in advance and those that remain unsalted are so far into the future it would hurt even less to wait). This could also apply to various other products, e.g. new versions of certain iPods (I would probably suggest the iPod Classic here but it was put to rest within the last month, so I don't think anyone's going to rush to make redirects that arguably will not ever be needed for that). I guess things like the iPod Touch or similar could use salted redirects like this. Although there is indeed something to worry about because various iPhone generations & variations are also indicated by letters as well as numbers, and more recently a full word, and we can never anticipate what Apple's going to use next. So let's hope no one tries to speculate or we'll have hundreds more redirects to worry about. LazyBastardGuy 15:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Steel1943/Archive_6&oldid=1142802518"