User talk:BDD/Archive 16

Thanks for the thanks
I may have said this before, but it means a lot to me when you say "thanks" when you close an RfD that I have turned into an article (however much a stub etc). One doesn't ask for much from Wikpedia, but believe me it means a lot. Si Trew (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear it. Your work is appreciated. --BDD (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW apropos Penguinone and your closing comment – there is another para in the Japanese, and I've added at Talk:Penguinone, but Google Translate makes a right mess of it. I think it is trying to say that the carbon-oxgen bond at 5 in the ring inhibits transfer of 4 and 6 carbons in the ring, but I wouldn't know how to put that in English. (Disclaimer: I worked for many years on a product called Materials Studio, but I still understand bugger all about it). Si Trew (talk) 09:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Koeboluzioa
Is there a better way to "bump" an RfD discussion? Koeboluzioa has been languishing in the archives for two months without closure. —Ahecht (TALK PAGE ) 16:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a way to relist a discussion. Some may frown upon you relisting your own discussion, but it's not forbidden per se. See Template:Rfd relisted for a how-to. Let me know if you have any questions. --BDD (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! And don't worry, I'll get to all of them. --BDD (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and no worries! As I mentioned below, if for some reason time doesn't allow for you, I'll try to get some time myself and place some Db-xfd tags. Steel1943  (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, I noticed that they hadn't all been deleted yet. I know that there are a lot there. If I get time later today or tomorrow, I'll start tagging them with Db-xfd tags, given that I nominated them all, so I'm willing to do the final touches. Steel1943  (talk) 20:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

About ''
Sorry about that; for some reason, I completely overlooked that part of the closing statement. However, on a related note, I created Talk:'' for a reason that is probably clear. Steel1943 (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Please see the discussion about RfD closures
Can you check the discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure? You wrote that qualified non-admin closures were possible. In my opinion, the policy does not allow 'delete' closures by non-admins. EdJohnston (talk) 02:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

In other news...
...I'm sort of half-considering nominating myself right now for WP:RFA considering the extreme backlog at WP:RFD, the fact that many of the discussions require deletion (which I am not closing due to all the negative attention that I would bring to myself per WP:NACD and WP:BADNAC), and the fact that the deletion function is not unbundled from the administrative toolset. I mean ... ha, one upon a time, an editor passed an RFA almost solely on the fact that they wanted to edit protected templates prior to the Template editor permission existing... Steel1943 (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea. You'd have my support. As you can see clearly, the general admin shortage is especially acute in certain areas, like RfD. I do think many editors would appreciate a potential admin's willingness to work in those areas where the need is greater. If you're serious about this, shoot me an email and let's talk. --BDD (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Orphan material in the history of a deleted redirect
You asked for some people to close the RfD backlog and I've done a couple. See this deleted revision from Ronald Reagan Election Eve Speech "A Vision For America". If I were closing a move discussion I would normally try to preserve such material, but since the redirect is now deleted as lacking any appropriate target, it's unclear whether to do anything. Maybe I could dump the text on the talk page at Talk:Ronald Reagan presidential campaign, 1980 and mention the editor's name for attribution? EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Restoring NXT Championship templates
Since the template was deleted, NXT has gained a MUCH higher profile in WWE and in the wrestling world, with many going so far as to say the product therein is better than the main roster product. I looked up the discussion and it was chock-full of WP:ATA (WP:PERNOM and "the titles are minor.")  When you're part of the next step up to the "major leagues," I highly doubt a title therein is minor; by your logic, we should delete most of the articles related to minor-league baseball.

As such, I am looking to restore that template, seeing as the NXT Championship has proven a stepping-stone to bigger titles ahead (as the first two NXT Champions Seth Rollins and Big E will tell you). If we have TNA and Ring of Honor champion templates, give NXT a place too. Tom Danson (talk) 11:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't been at TfD in quite a while, so I'm sure enough time has passed that a second chance makes sense. Point me to the discussion and I'll restore them. --BDD (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It appears that TfD is only for template deletion or merging...all I'm asking for is your permission to restore that template on my own. Tom Danson (talk) 18:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, sure. I was assuming you were referring to a template deleted at TfD. (Otherwise, I'm really not sure what you mean.) As an admin, I can undelete any such templates so you wouldn't have to start from scratch. It's up to you, though. --BDD (talk) 18:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Plowback retained earnings
I believe that the discussion regarding the Plowback retained earnings redirect resulted in a clear consensus to delete. You closed it as "no consensus." Please re-examine the comments made by the editors who participated in the discussion and adjust your assessment of the consensus to reflect both the presence of multiple policy- and common-sense-based arguments supporting deletion, none of which were refuted, and the absence of arguments opposing deletion beyond a textbook example of WP:ILIKEIT. Thank you. Iaritmioawp (talk) 06:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I stand by the decision. You may use WP:DRV if desired. --BDD (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Would you mind expanding on what exactly made you conclude that no consensus was achieved during the discussion? I failed to make you see my point, but maybe you could help me see yours. Requesting a deletion review while the picture I have of the closure is still incomplete is something I'd rather avoid. Perhaps it's my understanding of your closure that needs a review rather than the closure itself, and I'd hate to waste other editors' time at WP:DRV if that's indeed the case. Iaritmioawp (talk) 05:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You make a fair argument for deletion—that "plowback retained earnings" is redundant and therefore an unlikely search term. But the comment on your talk page made a reasonable argument that the redirect could be useful, and another editor agreed at the RfD. Most importantly, I saw no evidence of harm from keeping the redirect. You expressed a concern that it would create a precedent for redundant redirects like Dictionary lexicon, but you really need not worry about that. Precedent doesn't have any real force on Wikipedia, and particularly in RfD, you see a lot of what I've termed RfD zen: redirects that shouldn't've been created, but should also not be deleted once created. It's a bit of a strange idea to wrap your head around, because it's completely contrary to, say, AfD.
 * I'd suggest two basic questions that need to be answered about a redirect. First, is it conceivable as a search term? (Not necessarily likely.) Second, does it do any harm? I would say yes and no, respectively, to this redirect. --BDD (talk) 16:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Closerfd script broken
If you use the User:King of Hearts/closerfd.js script, a recent update seems to have broken it - see discussion at WP:VPT. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification. I don't use the script, but I may check it out once it's fixed. --BDD (talk) 15:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Chupacabra (The Walking Dead)
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Chupacabra (The Walking Dead). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

GOCE holiday 2014 newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Plowback retained earnings
The purpose of this message is to inform you that your recent closure of a discussion regarding the Plowback retained earnings redirect is currently undergoing a review. Iaritmioawp (talk) 08:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As i see it, there,s no case for any change, review or not.Kfiulis (talk) 12:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Scarface181268
Is it possible to restore the deleted contents of this userpage, dealing with the oldest people in the Benelux, to some other page, please? 83.134.204.226 (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * To what end? Per the MfD result, this content shouldn't just sit around in userspace again. But if there are sources you want to incorporate into an article or if you want to retain anything off-wiki, I could help you with that. --BDD (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I want to transfer this carefully over the years gathered data to a page on the Dutch Wikipedia, hence, so could you, please, send all the data to bversieck@gmail.com? 83.134.206.245 (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ I used an anonymous service to send this, so please let me know if there's any trouble. --BDD (talk) 17:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sadly, I didn't get it at all really. 83.134.206.245 (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, I tried again, from my personal email. Please don't spam me or anything. --BDD (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Unsalt page The Reformation (band)
A couple years ago, you salted page The Reformation (band) for being created and deleted too many times. I believe I have sufficient sources to establish the band's notability per WP:BAND. Please check my sandbox and let me know what you think. Wikitam331 (talk) 06:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ This is not an endorsement of the article in your sandbox; I think it could use another ref or two, especially from a more prominent source. But it's been long enough and new sources are clearly available. Proceed as you'd like. --BDD (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Can you also unsalt page The Reformation (album)? Wikitam331 (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ --BDD (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

GOCE 2014 report
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Station case
Have you looked at the Station capitalization issue brought up by your various RMs? Are you think that "Station" is part of the official names? Dicklyon (talk) 03:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The capitalization is of secondary importance to me, but if the actual names of the stations are "Foo Station", it seems a little silly to have "Foo station" as our titles. --BDD (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's point. Perhaps you can join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(US_stations), where we'd like to make sure we capitalize Station if and only if it is part of the official name, as the guideline says, which seems to be in contrast to all your RMs.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll do that. --BDD (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Autism Research Institute
I don't see any discussion about this institute's changed status. It still exists. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Those dates only applied to the Defeat Autism Now Program. I'll transfer the categories onto the redirect. Some expansion will probably be necessary now that the article is about the organization again. --BDD (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Umer Farooq nomination for deletion
Why this article is nominated for deletion? Is it not enough notable? Lava 16:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lava216 (talk • contribs)
 * Yes, that's correct. See WP:BIO for notability standards on people. Let me know if you have any questions. --BDD (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested Self-Block
Hi this is home IP address. I am writing here (and at a few other Admins TP's) to request a block of my IP address (this one 98.74.168.58 (talk)). I am a week away from exams, and have used WikiBreak Enforcer on my main account. I discovered however that I can still edit from here and the temptation is too great. I have confirmed with my ISP that I am the only customer given this IP. A block until February 1, 2015 is requested for my current IP address. Thanks! 98.74.168.58 (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC) User:EoRdE6's IP adress
 * This has been dealt with. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Talkback message from Tito Dutta
Tito ☸ Dutta 11:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

RFP glitch
You've deleted a redirect based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_5#Netherlands_Antilles_and_the_the_European_Union, but that link goes nowhere. Your redirect discussion seems to be someplace else.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The actual discussion is at Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 5 (it's a multi nomination). That was a formatting error on the part of the nominator. I try to tweak those as I find them, but it's usually not super important. I could undelete it and redelete it with a working link, if you concerned. Since the link still takes you to the right page, I don't think this is a huge deal. --BDD (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The Bible
For what it's worth, I agreed with you, at least in principle, that the article should be titled "The Bible". Yesterday I was going to place a comment in support of your requested move, but before, I wanted to review WP:THE and perhaps quote some part of the naming guideline that could back up my support. Unfortunately I couldn't find any. The guideline doesn't seem to have a stipulation that requires a "The" in this situation. I tried to reason a way through the guideline and perhaps find some loophole that could be used as an argument. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any loophole in the wording. That does not mean, however, that I still don't think that the article should have a "The" in its title. So instead of supporting or opposing the move, I decided to just let it go in order to see how the winds were going to blow, but you closed your move request this morning so I guess we won't know. The biggest blow to your move request was that nothing else is ever called a bible. The Christian bible tends to be the only thing that is ever called The Bible. If there were other books that have been consistently refered to as bibles, then your move request would be easier. Unfortunately, the guideline currently doesn't have a stipulation for this case. JOJ Hutton  21:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Cold Mountain
Why did you remove the hatnotes from Cold Mountain? Are you aware that the Chinese poet is referred to as Cold Mountain in English? 

Also, you may want to consider adding a more specific edit summary than "removing hatnote". We can see that you are removing a hatnote. Explaining why would be helpful. &mdash; goethean 17:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm aware. But there's already a disambiguation page at Cold Mountain that lists Hanshan. A reader wouldn't search for information about the poet under the titles "Cold Mountain (film)" or "Cold Mountain (novel)", nor would a reader seek information about the American film and novel under the title "Hanshan (poet)". --BDD (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:APOAT
Is there a reason why (name) is preferable to the more precise ambiguator? This section of WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards seems to have been unilaterally added in 2013 without my noticing, but it is not something I have ever adhered to. As far as I'm concerned, using (name) on what is exclusively a surname article misleads the reader into thinking it's a given name too. &mdash;Xezbeth (talk) 08:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, what about situations where the surname is separated from the dab page, but a couple of given name-holders remain on the dab page. In those instances, (name) would definitely be incorrect. &mdash;Xezbeth (talk) 08:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure of the rationale there, but it may have something to do with the universality of "name", compared to "given name" and "surname", which aren't globally used concepts. And since given names and surnames are both types of names, it's not misleading per se. In cases where a few given names are on a dab, I would just add them to the surname page. I did that yesterday with Matt and Matt (name). --BDD (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

"Your edit on United States Central Command has been reverted by BDD"
Hi BDD,

I just received a notice that you have reverted my 18 January 2015‎ edit to United States Central Command. Thank you for drawing my attention to the removal of the text by usert:Mrfrobinson on Talk:Identity_theft_in_the_United_States. Mrfrobinson and I go back a long time and I have never been able to figure out why he is targeting so many of my edits on Wikipedia. Thanks for any suggestions on how to handle this situation. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hm. Well, I found this by way of an RfD Mrfrobinson initiated; see Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 20. It looks like you got a notification of that; the issue may be decided there. --BDD (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Pompoms and pompons
I understand that you are the admin responsible for moving the article "pom-pon" (with an N) to pom-pom (with an M) about two years ago. With regard to the hyphen issue ("pompom" vs. "pom-pom", etc.), I do not care. But with regard to the N vs. M issue (which I think is much more relevant), I am contacting you to ask you to reconsider the decision. I did a search on the topic in printed dictionaries from the early 20th century, discounting Internet sources as prone to regular errors and inconsistency. I found the following:

Pom-pom n. a machine gun of large size Pom-pon n. an ornamental ball, as of feathers or ribbon Next, pompom [From sound of the discharge] n. a one-pounder automatic Maxim gun (Colloq.) pompon (F. pron. põn-põn' n. [Also pompom; <F. pompon an ornament, <pomp splendor, see pomp] an ornamental tuft of feathers, silk, etc. for a bonnet or hat Then

pom'-pom, n. a one-pounder, quick-firing gun (from the sound). pom'-pon, (F.)n. a tuft of feathers or wool on a shako or hat. And then this, from the academic journal Language published by the Linguistic Society of America in 2004: "...This is apparent in patterns of speech errors, for which it has been widely established that consonants sharing greater similarity have an increased likelihood to participate in a slip of the tongue... Priming among similar segments within words is also made evident by phonologically based analogical pressure. Zuraw (2000) observes that segments in similar syllables are often rendered identical; English examples include pompon -- pompom, sherbet - sherbert." (Wikipedia has the ice cream "sherbet" under sorbet where in the section "Distinction from sherbet" there is a link to the Wiktionary definition of sherbert explaining that this is a common but still incorrect variant of "sherbet").

Lastly, from the Oxford English Dictionary, which I consider to be more reliable than most (given here slightly abbreviated):

pom-pom [Echoic.] 1.1 The name given during the South African war, 1899–1902, to the Maxim automatic quick-firing gun. pompon, pom-pom Also pong pong, pomponne, pomˈpoon, pompom, ponpon, pompone. [a. F. pompon (1725 in Hatz.-Darm.) a tuft, top-knot; of uncertain origin; possibly a colloq. deriv. of pompe', see pomp.] A jewel or ornament attached to a long pin.

It seems clear that the original word was the French pompon (no hyphen, one M, one N) and it looks like as the word was adopted into English that it was [erroneously] converted by some speakers into pompom for the morphological reasons given in the journal article. Though both forms are perhaps now "correct" in some sense, the primary English form chosen in reliable published sources (and discounting those like "Wordsmyth.com" that don't even spell the word "smith" correctly as inherently unreliable) seems rather consistently to be either pom-pon or pompon.

According to WP:COMMONNAME, even if the "No consensus" conclusion were eventually reached regarding the M vs. N issue in a proposed title change, as the first non-stub version of the article title was one ending with the letter N and not the current one ending with the letter M, it looks to me like the earlier title (with or without the hyphen, which again I view as largely irrelevant) spelled with an N should be returned to. Furthermore, while the policy given under WP:UE is meant to encourage the use of English spellings of otherwise foreign words in article titles and was used to support the move of the article to its current location under pom-pom, the word "pompon" is an English word (as well as a French one, from which it is derived) and happens to be the historically  correct English word (which pompom was not, though it kind of is now, unless you are talking about the gun, which we aren't): WP:UE is therefore not relevant in this instance. What do you think? KDS 4444 Talk  17:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * On the article talk page, there are many dictionary citations that favor the M form. I wasn't the admin who moved the page; I was the one who proposed the move. In fact, I wasn't an admin at the time. moved the page. Since it's been almost two years since that discussion, your best bet would be to create a new WP:RM—or better yet, to accept that the English language is a living, changing creature, and "pom pom" is the dominant form today, meeting the WP:COMMONNAME standard. Early 20th century usage is quite irrelevant if it conflicts with current usage. Sorry to be so harsh, but your position makes no sense to me except as an exercise in prescriptivism. --BDD (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Economic growth
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Economic growth. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Primary topic and introductory line on the same line on dab pages
Just a quick question. In your edits to Mary Berry (disambiguation) and The Balcony (disambiguation) you put the primary topic and the introductory line on the same line. I have always seen them on different lines, so a little confused to see you change this. MOSDAB says they should be on separate lines. Is there a reason for this change? Thanks, Melonkelon (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, does it say that? I guess I was using bad examples. To my mind, it's a better use of space, but I won't fight over it. --BDD (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Woodstock
You closed the move at Talk:Woodstock as "no consensus to move the page." However, did you not notice that several of the oppositions merely cited the previous move and gave no relevant reason as to why the article should remain at its current state? The result was 9-9, and comparing the statements from both sides, it appears that more of a consensus to move the page was reached than to leave it at its current title. This was not a vote.Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * BDD, if you are interested in more information about this, please see Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive868 or User talk:Steel1943. Quite frankly, I agree with your close of this, and the links above might show a bit of an WP:OWN violation. Steel1943  (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * - Oh, so now you're accusing me of ownership- what's next? You obviously haven't checked the article's history. I've never even made one revert to the article. The ANI case doesn't matter now, anyways.Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * (Also, the ping directed towards me did not work since you attempted to ping me in an edit that did not include your signature as part of the edit; please see WP:ECHO for details why.) Trying to take control of the name of an article and disregarding WP:TPO to try and get an upper hand in a move discussion can be considered an WP:OWN violation.  Steel1943  (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -I was basing off of the supports. I would seek help from them, but that would be a WP:CANVAS violation. Also, I already agreed not to mess with others' comments. Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * At this point, you would probably be better off taking your concerns to the move review you opened up; since BDD's page is not that page, comments about the move that are on this page might not be taken into consideration when the MRV is closed. (Also, BDD, I'm done adding to this thread that has led to a discussion with me; you're probably getting a bit overwhelmed with the amount of talk page notifications you have received.) Steel1943  (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Qxukhgiels, I don't know if you're new to RM—I used to be very regular but have been more active at RfD lately. Regardless, there's absolutely nothing wrong with registering an opinion "per" a previous discussion or another editor's comment. Requiring every editor to make a novel argument would essentially punish comprehensive arguments—there's no need to reinvent the wheel when it comes to discussions.
 * I wasn't aware that you were refactoring other users' comments, and I hope you realize now that this is unacceptable. IAR is not a defense for that any more than it would be to ignore NPOV (indeed, this is fourth pillar stuff we're talking about here). I suppose the matter will be settled at MRV, but don't trouble yourself for having skipped a step; I wouldn't've changed the close anyway. --BDD (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Move review for Woodstock
An editor has asked for a Move review of Woodstock. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

List of disparaging names
Hi BDD

I was just looking back at the discussion at RfD about Shittsburgh. I am inclined to create and link up a List of disparaging place names, but would like your advice on exactly how it should be titled.

Best wishes, belatedly boldog üj evet. (Happy New Year) Si Trew (talk) 11:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Si, happy new year to you too, and I believe congratulations on a new job. I've started the page up at Draft:List of disparaging city nicknames. Please, by all means, join me. There's not necessarily any reason to limit the scope to cities, as opposed to higher-order jurisdictions, but personally, I want to see if this sort of article is accepted before going too far. The title is somewhat arbitrary; List of pejorative city nicknames would work just as well. I hope no one gets too hung up on "city" as shorthand for "populated place" though, as that's common enough on Wikipedia. --BDD (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at that yet, but I think "city" might be a biit bad as in USn English anything with one man and a dog is a "city" whereas in British English it means a large conurbation, so that might not be so great for WP:ENGVAR. I'll try to add to your draft with just any random things I think of so that we can then start to tidy this up. Yep, new job but water is somehow cut off (pissing down with rain outside but no water in the taps!) Fortunately have beer which is 95% water. Si Trew (talk) 02:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a really brilliant draft and I don't think I could do anything to improve it, nicely done. My only reservation is the "city" bit and couldn't we just put as you suggested to List of disparaging place names and lose the "city" out of it. Amazing how many I have been to or lived in, when I come to look at it. Si Trew (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words. We can get this sorted out later, but I don't like the new name because we've lost "nickname" in there, and that's important. List of disparaging place names sounds like actual names for places that are disparaging, like, say, Hell, Michigan. By the way, a minnow to you for pinging me on my own talk page! :P --BDD (talk) 03:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Haha, sorry about the ping.
 * I see what you mean about "disparaging names" not being nicknames (Boring, Oregon also springs to mind, and I think there are quite a few rather odd ones in the western United States, partly compounded by respelling by the United_States_Board_on_Geographic_Names in the 1920s (which according to Bill Bryson couldn't even make its mind up what to call itself. (It was geographical names for a little while).
 * Shall we move this out of your talk page onto the page name of the article where it currently stands, But I do think you are roughly right, but as we discussed at RfD they are sometimes quite ironic and self-identifying so are not necessarily pejorative. List of city nicknames already exists, redirecting to Lists_of_nicknames, so that's not much help. Si Trew (talk) 07:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * For example we have Wank, Bavaria as a redirect to Wank (mountain). That's quite a disparaging term (for masturbation) in British English but not I think in American and presumably not in German. Si Trew (talk) 07:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec) List of disparaging city names perhaps or List of disparaging names for cities, but both seem a bit weak. Si Trew (talk) 07:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

New job
You are right, I do have a new job to start on 2 Feb but obviously I won't say who etc on Wikipedia. It has a web page on Wikipedia but of course I should not want to interfere with that; like I have never touched prevous companies I have worked for such as Accelrys, since that would be out of order.

I was thinking of Accelrys partly with the list of disparaging names, that its logo was known as the "blue sphincter", like when I worked for British Aerospace it was known as British Waste of Space as I think you said somewhere in the earlier discussion at RfD, as a kinda ironic pride (self-deprecation). Hard to know how to put that kind of thing on RS wikipedia isn't it. Just randomly I thought well Wikipedia should be Shittypedia by the same token, but I am guessing when I preview this that will be red. Yep is red. Si Trew (talk) 02:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Großer Tiergarten → Tiergarten
you closed a move request Großer Tiergarten → Tiergarten as no consensus. As a requested move is not a vote, what were the policy based reasons based on the evidence presented made you decide that a move was not appropriate? -- PBS (talk) 09:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ambiguous evidence from sources about the question of primacy. You made a decent argument when you presented search results, but so did AjaxSmack and In ictu oculi. If you attempt a similar request in the future, try leading with the evidence. It looks like you didn't expect the request to be very controversial at the outset—I'm not faulting you for that, because sometimes it works that way. --BDD (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What was the evidence that AjaxSmack brought to the discussion?  In ictu oculi makes a statement  but did not back up the statement with any evidence to support the statesman. If you think otherwise then please point me to the edits where they did. -- PBS (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Any refs to the move request please? Großer Tiergarten is primary to which both Tiergarten and Grosser Tiergarten redirect. I think in EN:WP it would be more sensible to have it at Tiergarten with the eszet/ß as an, but that might confuse Austrian, Swiss and other German-speaking readers who do not use the eszet/S sharp. I don't think this is the place to discuss it anyway but in the absence of any refs to a talk page etc on which to do so, I can do no other. "Here I stand, I can do no other". Forget who it was who said that, some German chap Martin was his first name. (Sorry BDD.) Si Trew (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Multiple issues
Hi. Do you use some script to edit pages? It turns you converted Multiple issues new style back to old style:. The old style soon won't be functionable anymore. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Really? That's a shame. Why would we do that? I liked the old style because it's less cluttered, but I'll cease using it if I have to. --BDD (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Pro-abortion violence
Yes, it's been nominated already - see Articles for deletion/Pro-abortion violence. StAnselm (talk) 04:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)