User talk:Grutness/archive48

This file is an archive - please do not add new discussion here - add it to my Talk page

English words of Arabic origin
What happened man? You had something good going. The layout was very readable. Then you deleted 40,000 characters?
 * http://spanish.about.com/cs/historyofspanish/a/arabicwords.htm
 * http://www.zompist.com/arabic.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.196.192.38 (talk) 06:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * No, I deleted several times that many characters. Characters which were transferred into six smaller, and much more easily loadable articles. All the information is still there, but it's now in separate articles for sections of the alphabet. An article of quarter of a million bytes is very difficult to load unless you have broadband, which is why such large articles are often split into smaller, more accessible, articles. They can be found linked at the top of the main article - the first one is List of English words of Arabic origin (A-B). Grutness...wha?  07:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It would be better to make those links a larger font so that people notice them. As I did not see them. ~ Opnion: People need to assume broadband. These references are no good if people have to thumb through pages loading back and forth is more than loading just once. The slowest connection that needs to be conceived is 3G on a phone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.196.192.38 (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * All text on Wikipedia - excluding footnotes - is of a standard size. The links are well-positioned and prominently displayed at the top of the article, where they should be readily seen by anyone reading through the article. They are also in bold, which makes them easier to spot. And most people presumably can, since this is the first comment on it that I know of in the eight months since the change has taken place, despite an average of 100 people using the main page and 120 using each of the subpages daily.
 * "People" definitely meed to assume dial-up. Wikipedia isn't just for people in countries where broadband is the norm (let's face it, even in countries like the US 30% of people still use dial-up). Wikipedia is worldwide. Making Wikipedia primarily accessible to broadband users instantly disadvantages a large percentage of the world. Excluding the US and China, the world's largest number of internet users come from India - and only 9% of those 150 million internet users have broadband. Next comes Japan - 100 million internet users, 30% broadband. Brazil has almost the same number of users, but only 18% broadband. Worldwide there are 2.8 billion internet users - only a quarter of those use broadband. If we were to assume broadband, we'd be disadvantaging out 2.1 billion people. Grutness...wha?  00:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Grutness provided the long answer. Here's the short one: Bigger font - I disagree. 3G - I disagree.  Schwede 66  03:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The Hebrides and its (their?) consequences
Hi there, Grutness. You might like to take a look here. Cheers. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Red links
Why did you add a whole lot of red links to One News (New Zealand)? Ollieinc (talk) 03:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Because they should be there. Redlinks in an article are frequently used as an indication to editors that articles need to be written, and almost all of the people linked are notable enough to warrant articles and should have them. Note too that in all I added 20 links, and 40% of those were blue - quite a number of those people already have articles and should have been linked. The 12 red links, in general, were to people equally worthy of articles - I've already created one of those articles since adding the links (Daniel Faitaua), and hope to do more once I get some spare time. Grutness...wha?  10:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the info. Let me know of any more you create, I'd love to help improve them. Ollieinc (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Willdo. Cheers. Grutness...wha?  22:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

An RfC that you may be interested in...
As one of the previous contributors to Infobox film or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!
 * This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Greetings
Good grief, there's a blast from the past, haven't seen you about in years, your name lit up in Alcatraz in my watchlist! Hope you are well, I think you were one of my earliest mentors on here!♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I know what you mean, see what I had to put up with recently on Talk:Annie Hall!♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Great Wall of China
Hi there, I see you reverted my removal of from the above. Please can you advise which other articles this claim appears in as I would like to add a new section on the topic. Many thanks, ► Philg88 ◄ ♦talk 10:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * List of reportedly haunted locations. As you'll see from the comment above this on this page, I'm adding several hundred articles which have sources listed in WP for hauntings to that category and its subcategories, but I'm doing it semi-automatically. Once I've finished doing that I'm hoping to go back and chick which ones need info in the specific articles, but it's quicker to do the semi-automatic process in one go and go back rather than check each one individually first. Grutness...wha?  10:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There's another, perhaps more reputable, reference here. Grutness...wha? 
 * I'm not convinced About.com is a reliable source. Let's see what happens at WP:FTN. ► Philg88 ◄ ♦talk 11:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Haunted places
I realise you are adding material to a list, but you still should not add this category to articles that don't have well-referenced sources stating that they are haunted places. And looking at the sources for the list, I'm pretty dubious they'd all be accepted in the parent article. I am raising this at WP:FTN. Dougweller (talk) 10:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you read the comments I have made further up this page? I would suggest you do so - it explains why I have added this and all the other articles. Undoing them will make the job of working out where further information is necessary more difficult. I would also ask you to read WP:REF, which nowhere states that the reference needs to be in the same article that is being categorised - only that there need to be references in Wikipedia articles. Which there are. Grutness...wha?  10:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've brought this up at WP:RSN. I think you are wrong and note that despite being reverted by 2 editors in at least one case you continue to add it. Dougweller (talk) 11:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course I did, because I'm working by both the letter and spirit of WP:REF. Note too that, as far as I know, WP:3RR has not been reduced to WP:1RR, so undoing twice is not a problem - especially since both undos (NOT reverts) were accompanied by a valid explanation of why I did so. Unless you can show me whereabouts it states that my addition was incorrect, please do not suggest that (a) I have been reverted when I have not, and (b) that I was wrong to undo those changes. Grutness...wha?  11:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do with 3RR, all to do with working with other editors. WP:3RR does say "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor" so I'm not clear what you are relying on when you say undoing is not reverting. Dougweller (talk) 05:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As an admin, you or I can either undo an edit or rollback an edit. If an edit is undone, it is recorded in the edit summary as an undo. It also means I have regarded that edit as a good-faith edit, or needed to make some comment about why I restored it to an earlier version. A rollback is recorded in the edit summary as a revert, and is used in cases of bad-faith edits and vandalism. Thus if something is called a "reversion" it implies that it has been rolled back through vandalism. None of the edits related to these articles were in bad faith, and none of them were vandalism. As to working with other editors, I have tried to do that, by explaining the full reasons for the changes I made. It seems, however, that you and other editors decided that, rather than trying to settle these things in a cooperative manner between us as editors via discussion here or on a talk page, you would head straight to noticeboards such as WP:RSN. This is not a way to increase cooperation between editors, but rather an escalation of a situation which could have been worked out quite quickly and simply. Admittedly, other editors have been more belligerent about the situation (I'm not sure when categorising articles according to information within Wikipedia articles in order to aid searching started to be regarded as "trivia cruft", but it was hardly a conciliatory description of good-faith work; neither am I overjoyed that the same editor is suggesting wasting time and energy on an RFC). Look, I know you're not a newbie here - you've got almost as many edits as me and have been an admin here nearly as long as me. You know how Wikipedia works. So why wasn't there a bit more discussion before jumping straight for a noticeboard? Grutness...wha?  10:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Because this spanned so many articles a personal discussion on your talk page seemed inappropriate. And of course you raised a policy/guideline issue about where references can be that needed other editors' input and was not about a particular article - only RSN or perhaps the talk page of RS was appropriate. I'm very confused with your take on 3RR - you seem to be saying that it doesn't apply to simple content disputes, whereas I am positive that it does. WP:3RR says " A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors," and lists 7 exemptions. If you still stand by your interpretation I'd appreciate it if you'd raise this at [[Wikipedia talk:Edit warring as I certainly need to know if I'm wrong. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I am aware the "so many articles" is only two - Great Wall of China and Valley of the Kings - hardly enough to warrant escalation to noticeboards. All I'm saying about 3RR is that it only applied after three restorations of a page. You seem to have been using my two restorations of one page as some form of reasoning behind why you thought this was a serious issue. I have not and never will overstep the Three Restore Rule, so to have someone to imply that two restorations indicates a problem serious enough to take to a noticeboard (as you did with "I've brought this up at WP:RSN. I think you are wrong and note that despite being reverted by 2 editors in at least one case you continue to add it") is a little eyebrow-raising. That's what seems inexplicable. Ah well, doesn't matter - there are far more interesting things and important things to worry about on wikipedia than this, so I won't be going near those articles again. Please be aware though that a lot of editors do regard the terms revert and undo as differently nuanced, even if their effect and intent is the same. Also please be aware that WP:REF is deliberately worded to allow for cases where a page's references are elsewhere - though it is more usually used for categorising redirects which by definition are referenced on a different article page. Grutness...wha?  00:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * By so many articles I meant all the ones you added it to, I'm guessing you used the same rationale for them and didn't actually look to see if the articles mentioned haunting - the discussion at RSN is relevant to that and I still think was worth raising there. As for your comment on revert and undue, I did raise that without naming you (but quoting you) at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. You don't seem to have ever been involved at at AN3 so that might explain your misunderstanding, but as another editor said there, what the edit summary says doesn't matter, all that matters is if it is one of the 7 exemptions or not. 4 good faith, well-reasoned reverts can get you blocked. I'm sorry if this has been a nuisance for you but I don't think WP:Ref was ever meant to mean that you don't need citations in articles (as opposed to redirects which are simply 'in' article space but are not articles. Dougweller (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It got to the stage where there seemed no point in checking whether they did because it looked like all of them did - I'd say about 98% of them mentioned haunting, probably more. I have been involved at AN3, but not for nearly a decade! Perhaps things have changed since I was last there. And there you go again saying that "4 good faith, well-reasoned reverts can get you blocked", suggesting that 3RR applies in this case even though the undos were not on the same article. Dougweller, you're a good admin - I've been seeing your work here for years - but how come you keep making these veiled threats about something which doesn't apply, hasn't happened, and isn't going to? Grutness...wha?  00:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I apologise if my wording isn't clear enough, although IRC that I made it clear there was no threat at all to you. None whatsover. It never occurred to me to consider 3RR in relationship to your edits. I meant "4 good faith, well-reasoned reverts can get an editor blocked", I simply used 'you' in a general way. That's the way I speak, which is clearly too ambiguous. Once again, no threat ever considered. And I wanted to understand your WP:REF mention. By the way, the reason I said you hadn't been involved in AN3 was simply that you can search contributors and I didn't find you, but I may have done the search wrong. And I can understand why after going through a large number of articles and finding they did involve haunting, you stopped. I hope we can get this behind us and that you will aceept that I never considered 3RR in relationship to you. Dougweller (talk) 07:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - perhaps I was reading too much into things (it can happen easily enough in Wikipedia arguments!). As to my name not appearing at AN3, it may have been back in those primitive times in the mid-2000s when that page was part of AN/I! No hard feelings for all of this, I hope. Grutness...wha?  09:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we're cool now. Apologies again for not being clear enough. Dougweller (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Stub template that you put up for del way back in 2006
Hi, regarding this deletion discussion: both were deleted on 28 February 2006, but was recreated on 1 July 2013‎, but has no stub template. Should Template:Gov-agency-stub be undeleted? -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Even excusing the direct application of a stub category without template (which suggests that the creator of the category doesn't know much about sub sorting) I'd say no. This looks reasonable as a container category, with nothing but subcategories - and the two subcategories look fine. But the same problem arises as in the original deletion - a general gov-agency-stub would cut right across stub hierarchies for no apparent purpose. Grutness...wha?  00:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Simulated haunting
In case you missed it, there's been some talk page response to your renaming of Haunted attraction to Haunted attraction (simulated). --McGeddon (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Kosovo stubs
Do you think Category:Kosovo stubs can be unprotected? Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't know, to be honest - I've been away from stub-sorting for quite a while and haven't been watching how Kosovo-related items have been faring around Wikipedia. You could try unprotecting it and see whether it survives OK, with the option of reprotecting if needed - other than that, try running it past Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Stub sorting. Grutness...wha?  01:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Grand Bonhomme
Could I direct your attention to an issue raised at an article you created Talk:Grand Bonhomme? Hoping you can help. Thanks. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  02:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I have replied at the talk page again. I'm still seeing elevations all over the place for this one. sigh... -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  00:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Locator maps
Hi there James, I hope you are well. I've looked up who has produced locator maps for rivers and it turns out it was you! I was wondering whether you could either produce some more, or show me how to do it, or team up on this. The background to this is that I'd like to add locator maps to the three Christchurch Rivers that already have an article (Avon, Heathcote, and Styx), and write an article for Dudley Creek, which has become notable through all the flooding that it causes. How can we go about this? Do you have access to PD material, or do the waterways need to be drawn from scratch?  Schwede 66  00:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi - I'm fine, thanks :) Hope you are too. I've not done any Christchurch area maps to the best of my knowledge, and I don't think I've got a PD map of that area (most of the ones I used were either from plain PD outline maps or using a composite of several different maps. In each case I drew the waterways largely from scratch. Easiest think would probably be to find a Landsat image of Christchurch (e.g., this one) and trace coastline and rivers over it on a photoshop layer using other maps for guidance, then removing the original - I could have a go at that if you like. Do you want the four rivers to be in the same map, or separate maps? Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  01:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm good - thanks! That sounds marvellous. I was thinking of separate maps. If you want to go to the extent of tracing coast lines, we might as well do the Avon Heathcote Estuary and Lyttelton Harbour. There's no article for Brooklands Lagoon yet. Let me have a go at Dudley Creek, as it's hard to spot, but we went on a bike trip along it the other weekend. I took heaps of photos, so should be figure out where it goes. I'm tracing it in Google Earth and are assuming that the output can be read into photoshop easy enough; note that I don't have a copy of photoshop.  Schwede 66  01:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * OK - things are a bit busy at the moment but I'll try to get onto it in the next few days. If you haven't seen anything in about a week give me a prod to remind me. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  02:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Angela D'Audney
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 6464 views! Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  12:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Article title capitalisation
I just saw your warning to about capitalisation. I'm not sure you if you're aware, but Damián80 and  have been warring over this very issue (as well as other things) with ElNiñoMonstruo being warned about doing the exact opposite to what you warned Damián80 about. The warnings that ElNiñoMonstruo have received cite Naming conventions (capitalization) as justification for not capitalising. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 13:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of the edit war, and actually asked for clarification on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization). It seems to me that there is no hard-and-fast rule. These expressions are not "borrowed from another language", and as such can hardly be said to fall under that classification. They are phrases within a language (these series are entirely in Spanish), but being produced in a country where capitalisation of every word is standard. As such, they fall into a grey area. Since all other Spanish-language series I had run across from the US capitalised every word, I assumed this to be standards - if not, I apologise. Even so, however, Damián80's wholesale cutting and pasting of one article to a new title caused a mess which took a bit of work to clean up.


 * If, as you say, full capitalisation is wrong, then you're going to need to change Amor en Silencio, Amor Mío, Amor en Silencio, Vas o No Vas, El Cartel, El Secretario, 12 Corazones, Caso Cerrado, Suelta La Sopa, Un Nuevo Día, La Corte de Familia, La Corte del Pueblo, La Hora Lunática, Mas Vale Tarde... and about 100 others. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  14:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not really sure what the correct capitalisation is myself. I just thought it strange that both editors have been warned, one for capitalising and the other for not capitalising. Damián80 should know better than to cut and paste, I'm sure it's one of the many things he's been warned for, and it's not good for somebody who was just let off a one week block 3 days early. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah - it is a bit ironic. I think I'll leave it to editors who have a better idea what the situation is! :) Cheers. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  14:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * First of all, there was never an edit war about this, that's a lie; I only notice the ElNiñoMonstrou about this, but there was never an edit war over. Now you're soap operas are an American chain, does not want to say that all titles should be capitalized, now many of Telemundo's telenovelas are produced in Mexico and sometimes in Colombia. Now if this is allowed for the soaps that are created in the United States, it also allows to create soaps that are in Mexico, Venezuela and Colombia ?. For example with "Dame Chocolate", if you see the logo, or the same logo says how you should write your title, with respect to what I did, and I will, but as he saw that no one did anything to fix this error I did, and I did not maliciously or because I like to, only I'm wrong. AussieLegend is exaggerating things. Then, they must agree on how they should go titles in Spanish, because some say Debene be capitalized, others say it should be lowercase and not agree on anything. Many are Telemundo telenovelas are produced entirely in the United States, many are produced in Mexico by Argos Comunicación. So I think the right thing would be to put all lowercase titles in Spanish, as do all Wikipedias, because there are many telenovelas from Televisa, who have several titles in uppercase.-- Damián  (talk)  16:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * For example, the title of the article "La Fea Más Bella", that is Mexican soap opera, and the correct title should be: "La fea más bella" as it must also not all initials should be capitalized only the first.-- Damián  (talk)  17:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * To complicate matters further... I won't address Wikipedia conventions - I'm out of my league there. But regarding language conventions: yes, in Spanish you capitalize only the first word and proper nouns in a title, e.g. Por ella soy Eva. (That might justify the "C" in Dame Chocolate.) But I checked Telemundo's web site, and they use the English conventions of capitalization, with upper case for everything except little words, e.g. El Señor de los Cielos. Why would a Spanish broadcaster use English conventions? Quien sabe?! (Who knows!) And if many of their titles originate off shore, then using a standard of "country of origin" seems to be inviting more confusion and disputes. Personal opinion here: Spanish eyes are accustomed to lower case (Amor de lechuga), but our articles are in English, so we should assume they're viewed by English eyes accustomed to upper case (Love in the Lettuce). I have no opinion on how Wikipedia should do it. I just wanted to add data to help TPTB reach an informed decision. Paulah88 (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is you do not agree, all titles were previously capitalized; but then came another user changing the way the titles to lowercase. And things are always being generated problems, especially with items that have titles in Spanish. Telemundo is an American television, but many of its telenovelas are hardly produced in the United States, mostly have productions made in Mexico or Colombia. The problem is is that if allowed to capitalize all titles will then written poorly written. So just because Telemundo is an American chain, everyone will want to do the same with telenovela Televisa. For example this: "Muchacha italiana viene a casarse," to be written like this: "Muchacha Italiana Viene a Casarse" or "Muchacha Italiana Viene A Casarse". It makes no sense to put the titles on the way to anyone he pleases. Now according to the rules of the RAE, all titles should be lowercase to start only, and should be capitalized when it comes to nicknames, names, surnames, finance etc The link is in Spanish; because you were the rules created for titles that should be in Spanish. Now, of course in English wikipedia, put the titles they want. I think that with respect to items of telenovelas, the titles should be lowercase, it would be more appropriate, plus many of the Spanish soap operas are.-- Damián   (talk)  19:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * So if we allow titles Telemundo telenovelas, are written in capital letters, just for being an American television network. So we should do the same with telenovela; Argentine, Mexican, Colombian, Venezuelan, etc.-- Damián  (talk)  20:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit war is the correct description... but that is neither here nor there. As it is, I've left this in the hands of those who discuss the naming conventions for capitalisation, who are better able to sort this mess out. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  01:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

New Zealand women's national softball team Proposed Move
Hi, this may be of interest to you. Bogger (talk) 10:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Or not :) Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  11:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Group order in football tournaments
Please read the talk page at the 2014 CONCACAF Women's Championship. If teams are drawn into particular positions, that is where they should be. Otherwise, alphabetical is fine. There is precedent for my position with the groups in the 2014 FIFA World Cup. -- Jkudlick (talk) 01:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Very strange, given that the groups for the 2014 FIFA World Cup were changed to alphabetical order, in accordance with changes made by FIFA during the World Cup - at the start of the tournament, listing was, indeed, by draw - but this changed before the first round of games was complete to a new policy. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  01:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Phil Ochs and "I Dreamed I Saw Joe Hill Last Night"
Do you have a source that says Ochs helped popularize the song? I think it was Paul Robeson who did that. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Robeson did help popularise the song to one generation, in the same way that Ochs (and also Baez) did to the next generation. This page probably gives a reasonable reference for it - though the song is widely known as a Phil Ochs song ahead of being by any earlier performer, as references online to it being a Phil Ochs song also suggest. My earlier confusion as to its authorship, buy the way, was because Ochs also wrote a completely different song with the title "The Ballad of Joe Hill". Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  04:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I learn something new about Ochs all the time. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Estimate of Total Number of Stubs
Hi I noticed that you updated the most recent chart related to stub categories and I'm wondering if you can point me to a source for the raw data on stubs. I'm trying to figure out a ballpark estimate of the total number of stubs. I've seen the stub category page and those have numbers next to them, but there's no easy way to grab those numbers. I'm wondering if you have access to a data set that you used to create the bar chart of stub article categories by amount and if you could tell me where to find it. Setch-l (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)setch-l
 * That was several years ago! I'm pretty sure I was using someone else's figures when I made that chart, though - possibly either User:Gadfium or user:Waacstat, who were also heavily involved in the stub-sorting project at that time. I'm really not sure how to go about it now - sorry! Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  00:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

*waves from afar*
Hey your Grutness! I was wandering around the stub sorting project for old times sake and saw your comment wondering whether anyone remembers you. I do, and fondly. Hope all's well down under. Pegship (talk) 21:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Deleted articles with freaky titles
Deleted articles with freaky titles, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Deleted articles with freaky titles & and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Deleted articles with freaky titles during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Ganges
Hi Grutness. I noticed your recent addition of the Ganges to List of rivers of Bangladesh and your question. I think the answer to the question is that the main distributary of the Ganges within Bangladesh is called the Padma River. It might still be useful to leave Ganges in the list since many readers might ask the same question you did, but perhaps a note after the Ganges entry explaining that the Ganges becomes the Padma at the border would be helpful too. Sincerely, Finetooth (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That explains it - I was wondering about that, and checking on Google maps it looks like the name change happens at the border. I'll see what I can do about altering the text to suit. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  00:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Super. Thank you. Finetooth (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)