User talk:Mclay1/Archive 2

Rumpelstiltskin
Paul McCartney not voicing Rumpelstiltskin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Tee 2010 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Who is Walt Dorhn?Daniel Tee 2010 (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Please Please Me
Yes, my edit was correct: if it's a newly remastered version, "release" is correct, since it's the first time that particular version has been made public; if the same version from 1987 had been brought out again, then "re-release" would be OK.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  03:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Just because it is remastered it doesn't make it a different album. All releases of the album after the first are re-releases. McLerristarr (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Your edit says: A newly remastered version of Please Please Me...was re-released on CD in both stereo and mono editions on 9 September 2009.- no: the newly remastered version was released for the first time on this date. It was The Beatles' catalogue that was re-released.  My edit was correct.   R ad io pa th y  •talk•   03:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Good point. I still think it would be better to change the sentence around so it says Please Please Me was re-released and remastered.


 * I think "remastered and re-released" would be the proper sequence of events, but yeah, that works!  R ad io pa th y  •talk•   04:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Track times
Where are you getting the track times that you are using to update Beatle album track lists? The times should be as found on the original release. is that what you are using? — John Cardinal (talk) 15:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The vinyl don't always say what the times are and when they do, it's usually a guess. I'm taking them from the 2009 stereo remasters which are now the definitive versions. McLerristarr (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * CD track times are almost always wrong. What basis do you have for believing that vinyl track times are a guess? You should undo all your timing changes. They were entered from the vinyl, and those are the authoritative versions. — John Cardinal (talk) 04:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * How are CD track times almost always wrong? I'm taking them from how long iTunes says they are - that can't possibly be wrong. McLerristarr (talk) 05:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The original vinyl does not display the track times. I don't think it really matters anyway. McLerristarr (talk) 05:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * CD track times include silence added to the beginning and ending of many tracks. It does matter--if it doesn't, why did you change them iun the first place?--and you should restore the times you changed. If you don't do it, I'll revert the changes myself, and that may result in the loss of other things you changed in the same edits. — John Cardinal (talk) 13:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The original times are longer, meaning they included more silence. They were probably taken from the 80s CDs. I'll change them back... for now. McLerristarr (talk) 13:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yellow Submarine
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.  Zac  Bowling  (user 10:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What the hell mate? I've been editing Wikipedia for years! Why do your edits consist entirely of reverting other people's? McLerristarr (talk) 11:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Beatles EPs
You recently made an edit to The Beatles template where you added an EP to the EP section. However, I reverted that, because if you see the talk page, you'll see that consensus is that only EPs with original material on it, i.e. songs that hadn't been released on albums and singles beforehand, should be in the EP section of the template. Don't worry, though: you're not the first person to make this mistake. -- Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Woops, sorry, didn't read the talk page. Won't make the same mistake twice. McLerristarr (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Beatles Template: Anthology
You've made an edit twice on The Beatles template that puts a break before the Anthology albums in the Compilation albums section. What do you mean by that? In the edit summary, you said, "Adding line break to keep Anthology albums together." That doesn't make much sense. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 11:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The volumes (1, 2 and 3) start at the end of the first line then continue on the next line. It looks better with them all on the same line. It doesn't create any extra lines so I don't see what the problem is. McLerristarr (talk) 12:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It doesn't look that way on my computer; maybe you just need to adjust the zoom on your computer. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * My zoom is normal. It's probably the difference in monitor sizes, since Wikipedia is capable of being in widescreen. McLerristarr (talk) 02:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Either way, it's unwise to change the template for just that. People's zooms and screens are different, so that sight you see will be different to many other people. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 11:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I know, but I forgot to consider that at the time. McLerristarr (talk) 01:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The Beatles at Rishikesh
Thanks for the help in cleaning up and improving The Beatles at Rishikesh.  Will Beback   talk    19:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent progress. I think we'll have a good article soon.   Will Beback    talk    09:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Let It Be – Phil Spector
Ok, as you mentioned in your comments in the Let It Be (album) article, I combed the Let It Be release. I checked the label on the vinyl, the back cover on the LP, both CD release and a cassette. All I found in relation to George Martin is a "thanks." There are several other people also thanked. I understand Martin may have supervised recordings and did preliminary production - but Phil did the final production on what is the Let It Be album, which is what the article is.

This would set new precedent on wikipedia if we were to list previous producers of a final product on an official album article. I understand referencing Martin in the article itself, but I see no reason why he is listed on the sidebar.

If there is something that claims Martin co-produced the album (which he did not) on the official album notes, then I'd be quite interested to know where it states it.


 * George Martin is thanked in a different place to anyone else who is thanked so the fact that others were thanked is irrelevant. It does not say anywhere that Phil Spector produced the album either. It says he reproduced the album for disc. He could not have reproduced it if it had not been produced in the first place. Martin produced the Get Back and Let It Be singles which were reproduced by Spector for the album. Martin is also listed as a producer for Let It Be... Naked. He is the producer of the recordings – that is why both he and Spector were listed as the producer, it was meant to prevent arguements. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 23:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The Truth
There is no valid reason to redirect The Truth (Kris Allen song). First of all it is not "a song" as you have stated of course every "song" can't have a page because there is no information for every song to warrant its own article. However it is a single. The article does meet notability standards. It has major reliable sources in independent media such as Entertainment Weekly and About.com, including of which an interview for the background section which is totally about the single. A critical reception section can also be delved into even further via album reviews. This single has become very notable prior to release due to the controversy over added vocals. Notabilty says MUST be covered by reliable sources, which it is, and no information is speculation so the article doesn't fall under WP:CRYSTAL. Also per notablility the "significant coverage" is not just trivial, and no "presumptions." So notability does not warrant a deletion because the article is covered by WP:NOTABILITY.

And Your Bird Can Sing
According to Lewisohn's book, Lennon plays lead. The website you provided mentions no source for the personnel line-up it gives. If you can provide a print (or an otherwise reliable) source, I'll be happy to let your edit stand. As it is now though, you've not provided any sufficient evidence to counter an already established claim by a reliable source, so your revision has been reverted. 98.218.45.19 (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Why is a book more reliable than a website? There are many books about the Beatles that contain many mistakes. The Beatles Bible is a very reliable site, on the about the site page it provides many sources, including Lewisohn's books, Revolution in the Head by Ian MacDonald and The Beatles as Musicians by Walter Everett. You need to provide a citation for your claim as well, if you think you are right. Lewisohn's book was written in the 80s, it's old and newer evidence has come to light since then. He was also not a musician or musical expert, whereas the other two books I mentioned are newer and Walter Everett is a musical expert. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 02:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Substing Welcome Templates
Just a quick note, can you make sure you subst welcome templates when you add them to a users talk page? Thanks =]  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 18:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Your rollback request
-- HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Martinvl (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Footballer
Concerning Footballer, I'm curious to understand why you think it was a disambig before you converted it to a redirect. As a consequence of your change, there are now over 1000 articles that point to a disambiguation page, which must be fixed. Per WP:FIXDABLINKS, could you do some cleanup? If not, do you mind if I revert it back to the article that was there yesterday? Thanks, -- Ja Ga  talk 12:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Footballer said exactly the same thing as Football player except it was written in a paragraph rather than as a list. If there is any extra information in Footballer it could easily be incorporated into Football player. However, I've decided I will revert my edit and instead redirect Football player to Footballer. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 05:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Both pages are now redirected to Football, which is best, but it means there are a lot of pages redirecting to a general page about all footballs rather than the specific type of football that the player plays. That, however, is the fault of whoever put a link to Footballer or Football player in an article anyway. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 06:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The Beatles EPs
I saw your recent edit on Template:The Beatles albums, and I want to invite you to a discussion on its talk page concerning the involvement of EPs. The discussion was originally started on Template talk:The Beatles, and has been moved to the talk page for The Beatles albums template. The following was said on the original discussion:

1) The only reason the EPs were originally left off Template:The Beatles was for length concerns. Now that their album discography is in a separate template, that is no longer a concern. 2) The EPs with original material would have to be distinguished as such, but cannot be bolded, as that would confuse them to be part of the core catalogue. Underlining has been suggested, but I'm not seeing this as an option in the Wikipedia editor. This is yet to be solved.

Thanks! Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

List of Oceanian countries and territories
I SPENT AGES EDITING ALL THAT! ARGHH!! BLABLABLAGRIPEGRIPE!!! D:< Alright, that's done, sorry. All a joke! Could you explain to me how it messed up sorting? The sorting seemed to work for me when I tested it before saving. The change was an attempt not only to remove blank spaces are really defunct spaces, but to make it more in line with other continental lists, for example, the British bases on Cyprus have a combined box on the List of Asian countries and territories. Maybe we can find a solution to it? I honestly feel that the table in Oceania is pretty bad compared to others. Not knowing how to make the flags bigger (due to my terrible technical editing skills) I tried to do the best I could. Additionally, I'd like to see Indonesia added to the list, but I was leaving that till later. Anyway, reply on this talk page, I'm watching it! Thanks. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You can undo my undo if you want. No edit is ever lost... unless your web browser crashes while editing or Wikipedia decides the session data could not be saved. I liked what you were doing though. The sorting didn't work when I tried it; the first column sorts all right but the rest seemed to fail, although there were a lot of blank spaces. My editing skills have improved a lot this year so if you want to do something to the page that you can't, just ask (e.g. I can change the size of images; although the flags are part of a template so they're a certain size for a reason). McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 08:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd rather not undo your undo yet, since you undid it for a reason. Can you tell me exactly what went wrong? I mean, there has to be a solution to the problems. Maybe some of the columns are extraneous? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I had the same problem on another article. The sortable tables don't work very well. Here is your final edit; the columns won't sort right for me. The full cells in a column sort in the right order but the merged cells don't. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 09:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd like to change it back if that's okay with you. The way I see it, the formatting is still screwed up when the boxes are blank, if they are combined then the same boxes screw up. Of course, I'll keep your change to Yaren district, though interestingly it only says Yaren on the Nauru page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It only says Yaren on the list too – it's piped to Yaren District, as is the link on Nauru, because Yaren is a dab page. Change it back if you want. If we think of something better, it can always be changed. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 13:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, understood. Thanks for the discussion. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Your edits to Australia
As per WP:OVERLINK, "avoid linking terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia". I doubt anyone reading the English Wikipedia doesn't understand what horse racing, surfing, soccer, and motor racing are so they shouldn't be linked, and in fact have been unlinked by other editors in the past. As for association football, this is under discussion on the talk page and the general consensus from the edit history of the article and contributions on the talk page is that it shouldn't be linked at this time. Because it is under discussion, linking it may be seen as disruptive editing. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

List of North American countries and territories
Sorry to bother you, but you seem to be the only other person who's edited lists outside of Europe. I wonder if you could tall me what you think about the edit I made here to the List of North American countries and territories. I won't comment on what I think of the motives of the reverser, but the main point here is that something like Central America shouldn't be on the list, we shouldn't subdivide lists of countries in continents by geographic area. Doesn't add much to the article. I replaced it with another trade group, equivalent to NAFTA, which was then reverted. I'm afraid to edit on the pages he's watching, for reasons you could probably assume, so sorry to bother you with it. As an aside, as the merge creator I think you can end them early if they seem unanimous before 7 days, and either way the 7 days for the first one has expired. Your call whether to do what BW suggests and consider the second one part of the first, but I doubt there will be objections to you moving it now! Thanks for your time, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No bother. I agree with you. It's pointless to specify what is in Central America. Your idea of a colour for the Caribbean Community members is a good one. I will re-do it and if it is reverted, I'll bring it up on the talk page. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 08:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

closing the Requested moves
I was wondering something that I thought the users that participated in arguments can;t close them. as said on Closing_instructions Gman 124 talk 03:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The seven days were over and there was no consensus. We discussed it vigorously and decided to move the article to a different name than the one proposed. So the original proposed move was over and redundant. If that is not allowed under Wikipedia rules, then the rules need to be changed. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 07:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * just wanted to point that out. PS you can't expect to change the rules every time you don;t like em. Gman 124 talk 22:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely the editor that requested the move can withdraw his request or accept there is no consensus and close it. Especially when its because a new RM is taking place on the issue and everyone agrees with the steps being taken. Also we do not have to change the rules.. just Ignore all rules if it is one. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Paper Plane
I think you dealt with it very diplomatically. However, I will make the following point although not make any further edits. That point is that we are not dealing with a different version of English; it's not as if we are talking about the difference between, say 'movie' and 'film'. These are both acceptable as American English and British English respectively. 'Movie' and 'film' are entirely separate words, independent of each other. With 'airplane' we are, in fact, dealing with a word that does not exist because it is simply a mis-applied and mis-spelt word which has found its way into everyday American usage. This is the same vein as 'check' instead of 'cheque'. Accordingly, I maintain there is no such word as 'airplane'. I am adding this to the talk page too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.5.216 (talk) 10:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "Google" didn't use to be a verb but now it is. 'Honour' used to be spelt 'honor' until it was corrupted to be French-like. Language changes and 'airplane' is the unquestionable American word for 'aeroplane'. I wrote this using Safari and the spell check is unfortunately set to American English – 'airplane' is accepted but 'aeroplane' appears with a squiggly red line underneath. Americans never say 'aeroplane'. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 10:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

While everything you say may be correct; it does not necessarily make it a valid word. There are plenty of examples of mis-spelt words which are so common as to make them accepted. This does not make them proper words. In any event, like I say, no point in labouring the point as you dealt with it well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.5.216 (talk) 10:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

My talkpage
Accordingly with the link you posted as a "reason" to disrupt my personal talk page:


 * Personal talk page cleanup: On your own user talk page, you may archive threads at your discretion. Simply deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted, but archiving is strongly preferred. Many new users believe they can hide critical comments by deleting them. This is not true: Such comments can always be retrieved from the page history. Removal of a comment is taken as proof that the user has read it.

So I chose to delete it, and reserve the right to make an "archive" if I prefer it.  Alex Covarrubias  ( Talk? )  06:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Just drop it Mclay, not worth trying to add them again. He does have the right to blanket delete them. Just shrug your shoulders and move on! Also, how did you eventually move the European page? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I haven't moved List of European countries and territories – it's still there. I only moved the talk page and the subpages. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 09:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone just moved it. Everything is sorted. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 09:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for moving some of those other articles, much better titles now. Glad this has now all been resolved. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Country Continent link box
Do you have any idea how this works at all? I think Antarctica should be added (Territorial claims in Antarctica) as well as the americas and Eurasia, but I'm afraid to go anywhere near the complex coding! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't know who wrote it but they made it very difficult to edit. I have no idea how to add new entries, it's based on another template that I can't figure out how to use. I'll try to re-write the template as just an ordinary template.  McLerristarr  |  Mclay1  12:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I've rewritten the template as a Navbox. You can now add new entries easily. I've added the Americas and Antarctica.  McLerristarr /  Mclay1  13:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent job, problem solved! I just divided the lists to make it a bit clearer. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply
Yes, I know all this it's more of a lecture than a Chat so I deleted it.

Sorryunlucky (talk) 05:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The Beatles in Rishikesh
(copied from Keithbob' user page) In a recent edit to the page The Beatles in Rishikesh, you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For subjects exclusively related to Britain (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to other English-speaking countries, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the appropriate variety of English used there. If it is an international topic, use the same form of English the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to the other, even if you don't normally use the version the article is written in. Respect other people's versions of English. They in turn should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any queries about all this, you can ask me on my talk page or you can visit the help desk. 'Travelling' is the correct British spelling. All pages about The Beatles are to be written in British English. (Unless writing the Traveling Wilburys, which is a proper noun.)  McLerristarr  /  Mclay1  09:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh I was not aware that the Brits spelled traveling with two "L", I thought I was making a standard spelling correction. Thanks for the heads up. I would however, encourage you in the future, to Assume Good Faith and take a more civil and cordial tone when you are leaving a message for a User who has just spent his time making a number of constructive edits to an article (including the addition of text with reliable sources) and innocently removed one letter from a word that they thought was spelled incorrectly.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 14:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I just used the standard template. It's not my words, except the specific bit about 'travelling'. I agree though that it probably needs a 'please' in there.  McLerristarr /  Mclay1  04:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the apology. I look forward to working together. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 19:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Redirects from unnecessary disambiguation
Could you add some text to this category's page to explain a bit what it is for? I could kinda/sorta figure it out, but. . . Thanks. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 18:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Done.  McLerristarr /  Mclay1  05:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Links and redirects
Saw your hidden comment about links to The Beatles. I nommed a couple of old redirects for deletion yesterday ("The History of ... ") since nothing links to them any more from article space and users would be unlikely to search by that name. If there are any others still in use, though, why dive in at that section, instead of just redirecting to the article? The lead is surely a better way into the history. Have you encountered many such links to History, and, if there are indeed any that need keeping, do you agree with my suggestion that it would be better to change them to point to the whole article? PL290 (talk) 10:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Where is the discussion page for the deletion? History of The Beatles used to be an article and has a large history so I don't think it should be deleted.
 * I think if a subject is covered entirely within a section in an article, then the topic should redirect to that section to make it easier for people to find what they're searching for. For example, people might not know who Johnny and the Moondogs are so they search for the name and it takes them to The Beatles, which is a large article, so taking them directly to the relevant section makes it easier for them.  McLerristarr /  Mclay1  10:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Any discussion is on the article's talk page, per the WP:PROD banner. You make a good point that that one used to be an article; I've therefore removed the WP:PROD from it. If you object to the deletion of the other one, History of the Beatles, please discuss etc. as indicated in its WP:PROD banner. Redirects to sections: I completely agree about the general principle; the point that I'm making is, History is an exception, because it's all-encompassing in a biography article. The biography of a person or group is synonymous with their life history. For this reason, I'm suggesting it's most helpful to readers not to link to that particular section. A straightforward link to the article presents the reader with the lead, where the history is summarized just ahead of the History section, giving them a better starting-point for their reading. PL290 (talk) 11:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, the original article, which you actually merged, is now entirely the history section and the history sub-articles which can be found in the history section. The history section is relevant to the redirect. However, I can see your point. Although, thinking about a print Wikipedia, if the contents page listed all the articles and the printworthy redirects, History of The Beatles would say "see The Beatles: History" or something, which would be better.  McLerristarr /  Mclay1  02:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I forgot it was the one I merged. On printworthiness, if all Wikipedia history articles had such redirects there would indeed be a long list named "History of ...". That would not enhance a printed document. Readers would find the subject more quickly under its alphabetical name than under "H", meaning that such redirects ought not to be deemed printworthy. So there would appear to be no objection to what I suggested. PL290 (talk) 06:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There are already loads of articles called History of something. The Beatles one just got too big so had to be split up. I think anything called History of something, providing it's correct spelling, capitalisation etc., is printworthy. I think it should stay redirected to The Beatles but if you want to redirect it to The Beatles, I won't stop you.  McLerristarr /  Mclay1  06:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Since my reasoning has evidently failed to convince either you or Jwy that the history summary in the lead is a better starting point for reading about the history, I'm quite happy to leave it as it is. Like I say, I don't think it's likely to get used anyway, so it's only a minor tidying-up question in my view, and causes no problem. The same is true of the redirect PROD, so feel free to remove that if you prefer. PL290 (talk) 07:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree now, however, about the printworthiness of History of The Beatles. If every page on Wikipedia had a printworthy history redirect, it would be a bit ridiculous. I'll make it unprintworthy.  McLerristarr /  Mclay1  07:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've added a to the heading you commented on.  That can stay the same if the title changes and things can be linked to The Beatles.  I'd change the links in, but no easy way to find them.  --John (User:Jwy/talk) 17:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Jwy, you may use the "What links here" link from any page to find them if you wish. But as I suggested above, I think that in the case of History, such links are more helpful to the reader if they link straight to the article. The reader may then read the summary of the history in the lead, just above the History section, as a better starting point to thinking about the history. Do you have a view on that? PL290 (talk) 19:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The "What links here" gives anything that links to the page. And a _few_ pages link to The Beatles.  My coming here was mainly prompted to help out with the problem of how to deal with the # link if it changes.  I can see how entering Johnny and the Moondogs and ending up in the middle of an unknown article might be a surprise.  But arriving at the top of the article without any mention in the lead of what I entered might be a bit of a surprise as well.  So no STRONG view: but if the term isn't mentioned in the lead, I can see jumping in the middle as acceptable.  --John (User:Jwy/talk) 20:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You can use 'What links here' then click 'Show redirects only'.  McLerristarr /  Mclay1  01:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's right. I was thinking "link" not "redirect."  Thanks.  That does reduce it to a reasonable number.  Looks like some have been changed already.  I'll leave it to others.  --John (User:Jwy/talk) 04:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's me whose been changing all the redirects. I've nominated several for deletion as well. I'm taking care of the formation anchor redirecting.  McLerristarr /  Mclay1  04:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Category:Redirects with content
Mind closing the CFDs for Category:Redirects with content and Category:Redirects to events so that both categories can be tagged for speedy deletion? Empty categories can be tagged, but only if they're not at CFD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I deleted the Cfd messages on the category pages. I hope that's what you meant.  McLerristarr /  Mclay1  08:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That works. I'll also close the CFDs. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 16:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Note
I hate the European country list. Out of all the 7 continent lists, it is the longest and most convoluted.

In other matters, someone recently alerted me of this Sockpuppet investigations/Corticopia. You were mentioned in it, thought I'd inform you in case you didn't know. It's old by now. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

List of public domain musical works
Hello Mclay1: I don't understand this: "this list [of musical works] is restricted to those which have a Wikipedia article." What about the non-existing articles about important and notable old compositions? I don't think Wikipedia should have an article covering public domain musical works selected by the presence in this project. I don't think Wikipedia should cover this topic at all, as there are thousands of compositions in public domain. Projects such as IMSLP serves that purpose far better. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There shouldn't be any notable musical works which don't have Wikipedia articles and there shouldn't be any non-notable musical works which do have Wikipedia articles. The reason for the restriction is because otherwise it would contain be thousands of compositions, as you said. Just because another website has information on something does not mean Wikipedia should not bother. Our list is more accessible.  McLerristarr /  Mclay1  11:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of public domain musical works
An article that you have been involved in editing, List of public domain musical works, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

"Political motivation"
Pray tell, what is my political motivation? You realize that you went from pointing out that I poorly documented an admin action (true, though I long ago lost the will to explain to these people what they already know; at the very least, he had been edit warring, and then he upgraded to actual vandalism. I see no reason to waste time with warnings in these cases, but on the other hand, it nonetheless should have done, and on that front you are correct) to severely impugning my integrity. So please elaborate. --Golbez (talk) 05:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not remotely a soapbox for my political beliefs. It's full disclosure. I have been involved in attempting to mediate the pointless fight on here between Azeris and Armenians for over four years, and I would be lying if I claimed to be entirely neutral, and remiss if I did not admit any biases. I am not entirely neutral, no one is, and I admit my bias. And I don't let them cloud my judgment in what actions I take - a pro-Karabakh vandal gets smacked down just as easily as an anti-Karabakh vandal. The respectable Azeri and Armenian editors on here know this, and I feel that I have earned their respect. You yourself pointed out - My "political beliefs" ran counter to my blocking that IP, so they don't appear relevant at all to any discussion of said block.
 * If you think it's "political belief" grandstanding that isn't allowed, report me. Please. Though, first you'll have to point out where such a statement is disallowed, even if it weren't completely relevant to my editing and administration activities here. Which it entirely is. --Golbez (talk) 07:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your lack of response leads me to believe you perhaps think you were wrong, or just want to exit the conversation, but I'd still like to know where it's said that "political belief grandstanding" is disallowed, and how what I have on my page is in any way irrelevant to my editing and mediation duties. That said, thank you for your apology for accusing me of making a politically inspired block. I've been protecting and blocking related to the Azeri/Armenian fight for four years, I would think that if I was making unsound blocks, someone would have successfully reported me by now. --Golbez (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it says in Wikipedia policy that you cannot talk about political biases on your user page, but from what other users have said, I just assumed it seemed a bit wrong. I'm probably wrong.  McLerristarr /  Mclay1  12:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

gallery
That page is an overview page.

Also, there are those who apparently wanted the gallery to be transcludable for their sub userpages.

All that said, what's your issue with it being displayed there? - jc37 06:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * My issue is that it is exactly the same as the gallery sub-page. What's the point of having the sub-page if it's part of the main page?  McLerristarr /  Mclay1  06:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's how transclusion works
 * Regardless if it's a subpage, or a template, or whatever.
 * A template typically looks the same on a template page as it does on every page it's transcluded upon. - jc37 19:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So you're saying, it's a sub-page so that it can be transcluded? I still think it's unnecessary to transclude it and provide a link to it in the same section.  McLerristarr /  Mclay1  09:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * While I didn't add the link, I believe it was added in order to make it easier to get to the subpage in order to edit/update it (any help to navigation is typically a good thing : ) - 13:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:The Beatles discography
Hi Mclay! Might you vote on this matter if you would concerning the song "Something", please? Thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Redirects from full names
Hello! You recently renamed the template R from full name to R from long name. I agree with your stated reasoning for changing the name and have nominated the corresponding category, Category:Redirects from full names, for renaming as well. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are welcome to add your comments here. Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk)

Apology.
Whether you believe me or not, I'd like to apologize for edit warring. - Zhou Yu (talk) 23:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR
Regarding this edit, you may want to review WP:ENGVAR and alternate definition 3. The edit itself is good (see WP:COMMONALITY), just the reason given is invalid. Anomie⚔ 11:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll remember that rule. I know what Wiktionary says but I don't trust it on anything. I know Americans often say 'alternate' but I just take it as them being incorrect rather than as an accepted alternative to alternative.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  09:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

-ize

 * Voilà! There is a small table of the -ize words at Oxford spelling. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. 2 -ize words though, not particularly extensive. :D  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  10:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I just remembered this page which might be of interest, created by a friend who helped me with some of the code to EngvarB.js. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks heaps. That'll help a lot, although it does kind of make my efforts pointless.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  15:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

"Rendering consistent British spelling by script"
Hello! I'm moderately confused - what did this do, please? Or did it not do something that it would have done, had there been something for it to do ... or something? :) All enlightenment gratefully received, thanks. Btw, while I'm here, on your page User:Mclay1/Britishisms I have a feeling - well, quite a strong one, really - that "airplaine" is wrong, and that it should be "airplane". No? I think so anyway! Thanks and best wishes, DBaK (talk) 07:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the airplane thing is just a typo, I only just made the page, it's a working progress, which ultimately may have a point. The British English script changes American English to British English and tags the article with a template to add it to a category of articles written in British English. The article didn't contain any Americanisms, which is why it didn't do anything, but it's still worth it just to add the template.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  15:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Aha, got it - many thanks for the clarification. Cheers, DBaK (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

On the same issue, why did you assign the United nations and related articles to British spelling? The UN website uses American spelling. I see you tagged International Organization for Standardization too, which also uses American spellings. What's the logic?  Will Beback   talk    10:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The UN does not use American spelling. It uses British Oxford spelling, which is British spelling except "-ise" words end in "-ize".  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  05:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Printworthiness of redirects
Hello there. A couple of months back you categorised Template:R from modification with Category:Redirect templates for which printworthiness is irrelevant. I was aware of the general issue of printworthiness and have been categorising my redirects appropriately, but I'm not sure that I quite understand this category. Any chance you could shed some light on it for me? Cheers! — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   01:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * From what I can work out, I think it's for redirect templates that can be used on any redirect, whether printworthy or not. I think the idea was to categorise all redirect templates in Category:Redirect templates for which printworthiness is irrelevant, Category:Templates for printworthy redirects and Category:Templates for unprintworthy redirects but it was never completed.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  01:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, I follow - Thanks. Incidentally, I'm impressed that you replied to me in under five minutes on such an incredibly obscure bit of project minutiae. Nice one. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   20:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Percent or per cent
Hi. You might be interested in this discussion regarding "percent" versus "per cent" in the manual of style, since you previously edited this part of the manual. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Manual of Style (spelling)
Whoops. Sorry. The paragraph just kind of crept in there after someone had changed honour to honor. I though someone had intended to "warn" the previous editor and had become carried away. I hadn't seen any discussion about this addition. I don't normally edit policy pages, but this appeared egregious to me. I guess I was wrong. Student7 (talk) 13:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar awarded!

 * Wow, thank you very much!  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  05:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Script application
Thanks for your efforts to improve stylistic consistency, but you do need to be more careful with your applications of OhConfucius's EngVar scripts. Even more important than enforcing consistent style in an article's nonquoted text is maintaining the original spelling of quoted material. After running the script, you have to look through to see if it has impermissibly altered any quotations (every such case must be assumed a false positive) and restore the original spelling. I observed multiple impermissible alterations of this sort in Sex Pistols and The Kinks. Regards, DocKino (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I could see that some were from quotes. I just wasn't sure whether that was actually how it was written or if it had just been typed into Wikipedia incorrectly, which is more likely. One of the quotes in Sex Pistols reads "would wear a velvet colored drape jacket (ted) festooned with safety pins (Jackie Curtis through the New York punk scene), massive pin-stripe pegs (modernist), a pin-collar Wemblex (mod) customised into an Anarchy shirt (punk) and brothel creepers (ted)." It uses American and British in the same sentence. Some of the quotes were spoken quotes and so can be spelt any way we want.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  10:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Please check your script edit results. You recent edit to jewellery messed up an image. Its spelled jewelry in the image name, File:Ancient Greek jewelry Pontika (Ukraina) 300 bC.jpg, and changing that creates an error and the image doesn't display. Vsmith (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, sorry. I did check it, just not well enough it appears.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  06:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * However, I'd appreciate if you didn't call the script "dumb". Firstly, it isn't mine and secondly, it is a great script; it just isn't perfected yet.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  06:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, sorry 'bout the "dumb" bit. It wasn't meant to imply anything about the creator or script user - just that the "robot" is "dumb" if it cannot make such a distinction and requires close supervision. I appears not any better than using a "find and replace" function of a basic word processor and a bot should do more (be smarter) than that. Vsmith (talk) 13:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the scripter tried to prevent it from affecting files but obviously it isn't working.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  14:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Redirect category
Thanks for the help with the template! Do you think a switch for including or excluding "after the redirect but on the same line" would be appropriate? I found this text rather useful because it tells you exactly where to place the template (well, most of them) in a few words and without having to refer to WP:RE/SG. Happy editing --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, definitely. This is a redirect is the only redirect template that doesn't fit with that rule, so rather than make a switch, I just removed the text. However, if you know how to make a switch for it, then I definitely approve.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  08:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

category parameter
Could you document this parameter on Template:Redirect category/doc? When is it used? Thanks for your work on this template, --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not parameter. I just rewrote what was already there with a simpler template. If the whole template is transcluded on a page outside the category namespace, the message "This template should only be used on category pages." will appear. I've already documented my changes.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  13:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hang on. I just realised I copied a parameter when updating the code on the various templates I've edited. Thanks for pointing that out. I'll either have to delete the useless code or add the parameter in. I'm not entirely sure what the parameter does but I got it from Tracking category.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  14:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've fixed up all the category templates I edited. The category parameter wasn't useful for Redirect template.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  16:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

MOS:SPELL/IZE listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect MOS:SPELL/IZE. Since you had some involvement with the MOS:SPELL/IZE redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Mhiji (talk) 13:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Request move listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Request move. Since you had some involvement with the Request move redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Mhiji (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Hoxne Hoard spelling changes
Changing spelling on a featured article from the OED standard recommended spelling of the "ize" endings of words to the alternate form of "ise" is arbitrary. If the script you are using does this by default then let me know which one it is, I strongly disagree with such changes. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I use Oxford spelling and consider -ize to be perfectly good British English, so agree that a script should not change "-ize" to "-ise" to confirm with British English spelling rules. But on the other hand -ise is also perfectly good British spelling (and probably more widely used in Britain than -ize), so I was a little surprised to see Fæ apply the British English Oxford spelling template to the article without first seeking consensus. BabelStone (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll take the Ox template off the talk page on the understanding that the "British English" template is not appropriate if the implication is that the associated script will convert "ize" to "ise" in arbitrary and non-consensual ways. Fæ (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Whichever was used first should be used. I didn't know which was used first so I just standardised the spelling.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  03:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Bad move of Alternate character to Alternative character
This was a misapplication of WP:COMMONALITY. "Alternate character" is the actual term in common use for this subject, so is the proper name of the topic per WP:TITLE and particularly WP:COMMONNAME. WP:COMMONALITY is meant to govern essentially discretionary choices of language use, mainly in article text, and I'd go so far as to say it should not be applied to article titles at all except when the title itself is essentially made-up, as with some list topics. Unfortunately it will take a move proposal to put it back. —chaos5023 (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal opened at Talk:Alternative character. —chaos5023 (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Also, you need to tag the categories you nominate for Speedy renaming. I just transferred over Category:Comic book alternate futures and Category:Alternate versions of comics characters, but I expect they will all have to be transferred back now, since you didn't tag any of them.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:14, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I did forget to tag them. Sorry. That use of "alternate character" is completely different to the above user's complaint. "Alternative" is entirely correct.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  03:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I should say that I expect they'll have to be transferred back if someone complains. No one has yet. I do note that all the articles in Category:Alternative versions of comics characters have "alternate" in their names, so you may wish to address that difference as well.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Rolling Stone article
Just wondering if you've seen the latest? (issue 1120/1121) There's some great stuff about John Lennon in it.

&mdash;  Paine Ellsworth  (  CLIMAX  )  17:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I haven't. Thanks. I'll have to see if I can get a copy of that. It doesn't seem to be available online.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  02:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome, and Happiest of New Years to you and yours! &mdash;   Paine Ellsworth  (  CLIMAX  )  00:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Happy New Year to you too.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  04:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Notability
Notability anywhere makes an article suitable for coverage on the English Wikipedia. Just because a song or album is only released in Japan does not mean it does not meet notability requirements for our project.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 19:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I disagree, but that's the beauty of consensus – editors can make case by case descisions. I'm not really bothered about notability anyway. I'll let others deal with that if they feel it necessary.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  15:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Proof
If you could please show me that this edit is justified, I would revoke the nomination. Debresser (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It used to do it, until it was reverted here. Someone obviously wanted to add that function but someone else disagreed with his edits. So, you are right in saying that it does not work; however, it can easily be made to work. I did it with Template:R to portal. Category:Redirects to template from non-template namespace would sound better as Category:Redirects to template namespace.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  16:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Then I propose you add that function, and if you do so, I shall revoke the nomination, of course. Debresser (talk) 16:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If on the other hand you don't, I think you should undo your revert of my removal of that sentence from the category page, and change the fierceness of your opposition in the deletion discussion. Debresser (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The latter of which, you have already done. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 16:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That would surely be less of a mouthful, but less descriptive. I would therefore propose to keep the present name. Debresser (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't edit the page because it's protected but I will make an edit request. I don't see how the proposed name is less descriptive; per the usual way of naming redirect categories, if a page was a redirect to the template namespace, then the page must be outside of the template namespace. To avoid any confusion, we have template documentation and category descriptions.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  16:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for posting so many times that I caused an edit conflict. Your argument is correct, of course. The difference is that the present name spells it out, without any need to think about the logic behind it. Anyway, if the category is kept, you could always propose a rename.
 * By the way, the edit you mention in the first line of your reply, from 2008, was more extensive than needed for the category sorting. I think you should propose only to add the category sorting, and not the rest of it. Debresser (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've made an edit request at Template talk:R from other template. I wasn't planning on restoring that user's other edits.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  16:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added my support for the edit request there. Debresser (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Category disambiguations
Did you discuss your creation of the category disambiguation category and templates with any of the appropriate WikiProjects? If not, it should be discussed before you start implementing it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't create them. They've been around for ages. I just renamed the template.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  17:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, there is no rule that says a user must discuss something before it is done. It should be done first, then discussion can follow if necessary.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  17:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a "rule" that changes which effect a large number of objects (what's the collective term for articles, talk pages, templates, etc.) should be discussed with the projects and/or talk pages of those subjects most likely to be affected. Violations of that are among the reasons that respected editor Rich Farmbrough‎ is under restriction.
 * However, I can see it's a rename, and the idea has been around since 2008, making it sufficiently established unless it violates existing policies or guidelines. I don't see a violation, so sorry to have bothered you.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The Beatles
I suppose you are a fan of The Beatles, but do you seriously propose changing their name to Beatles? Without the definitive article, they could only be called "Beatles", and every article would have to reflect that. Try asking for copies of "Times, Guardian, and Independent". Geddit?--andreasegde (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * When did I ever propose that?  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  04:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

RE/SG - is that the term of art? in any case, reverted
Hi Mclay1, I've reverted this edit of yours. You link to a project page which appears to have been authored by yourself and has no associated discussion page nor any indication of where this idea has come from. BRD is fine, so I'm sure you won't have a problem with me reverting all instances of this type of edit until you can (hopefully) show existing consensus for you to make these edits, or discuss further your basis. We generally do not alter user pages without compelling reasons. Other edits you are making with the same edit summary may be re-evaluated as well. Regards! Franamax (talk) 06:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't invent redirect templates. I only wrote a style guide on how to use them, which I was awarded a barnstar for so the administrator who awarded me it must have agreed with me. Redirect templates were being used long before I wrote that style guide. The compelling reason to add redirect templates is to categorise redirects into redirect categories. Providing an edit summary with reference to a style guide which I started is no different to any other user quoting WP:MOS or another style guide which they have contributed to.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  06:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll try to work through this in random order. Anyone can award barnstars, for any reason. That the awarder is an administrator means absolutely nothing at all. Receiving a barnstar does not constitute consensus for your ideas, it means that one individual approves of your efforts in the area described within the barnstar notice. Receiving a barnstar certainly does not give authorization to make edits, again, edits are subject to consensus agreement. Your "style guide" announces an aim of categorizing every redirect on English Wikipedia - that's wonderful for an essay, but is subject to free reversion until you demonstrate actual consensus for the notion, or alternatively show on a case-by-case basis why these changes are needed; that is how consensus changes over time. I dispute that you are showing a "compelling reason" and/or showing me the pre-existing consensus to make these changes (so obviously I am questioning your basis). It's interesting to see you use MOS as an example of a reliable style guide, as you were recently involved in discussions where the end result was that MOS got changed back to what reality dictated. And just to reiterate, please no admin-this or admin-that, I'm an administrator too but I can't award you an "anti-barnstar" to cancel the other (as yet unnamed) admin. We work in a flat space here, where ideas and persuasion trump status. One exception may be messing around with other editor userspaces, where I believe I do have something to say as an admin, and that thing is "show me why before you try it again". If you can show me consensus, no problem. In other spaces, you can gather consensus as you go, by individual discussion. Franamax (talk) 07:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * And thinking about this more, I'm wondering if you've considered one technicality about categorizing redirects: my understanding is that if even one single edit is made to a redirect left behind after a page move, that redirect is effectively salted, i.e. only an administrator can move the page back. In general we usually try to leave everything possible at the lowest permission level, to avoid creating elite groups of editors and stick with our "anyone can edit" philosophy. On that basis (and assuming I'm correct in my understanding), I would seriously question any effort to categorize all redirects. Plus I'm not sure I understand at all why categorizing redirects actually helps anyone to navigate the encyclopedia, which is what categories are supposed to be for. Franamax (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I know barnstars do not equal a general consensus but my point was that you are the first person who has ever questioned me about it. Editors do not need to gain a consensus to do something until someone objects. It's not my style guide, it is a style guide for a WikiProject that anyone can contribute to. The fact that no one from the WikiProject has objected to it means that there is a consensus that supports it or at least doesn't care one way or the other. But as I said before, the style guide is only a style guide for how to categorise redirects: categorising redirects was being done long before I started helping. I realise the technical drawbacks to editing redirect pages but, most of the time, page moves should be discussed anyway. I'll refrain from adding redirect templates from other users' pages; however, I don't think anyone would mind too much and they could easily revert it if they did. There are administration categories as well as content categories. Redirect categories group redirects by type, which can be useful for maintenance. I'm not sure what my participation in discussing the MOS has to do with anything.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  05:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Redirects from initialisms
Category:Redirects from initialisms, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. &oelig; &trade; 07:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

More than 4 full stops
Here's a list with pages having 5 full stops in the row. You may want to take a look and tell me if you find any that need correction. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I replied at WP:AWB/FR.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  16:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Redirects from other templates
I saw you tried to speedy Category:Redirects from other templates. Of course no admin will except a speedy until the category is empty. But in addition I saw in your edit summary that you said "The discussion at the TFD was to delete the category." Were you referring to Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_5? The outcome of that discussion mentioned only that a template should be deleted. It didn't mention the category. Or did you mean Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_18? Because that nomination was withdrawn.

In addition, after reviewing the well-shaped structure of Category:Redirects to templates, I am no longer in favor of upmerging Category:Redirects from other templates to Category:Redirects to templates. What I would think is a good idea is renaming that category for clarity's sake to Category:Redirects to templates from other templates.

What do you think? Debresser (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The outcome of TFD discussion was certainly to delete the category as well as the template. What's the point of deleting the template but keeping the category? If the category is to be kept, then the template needs to be re-created. The whole point of redirect categories is that they are supposed to be populated by redirect templates. The fact that some people have directly added the category to some pages rather than using the template is not a reason to keep the category.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  02:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your proposed name is better; however, I would prefer for the category to be deleted or up-merged.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  02:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, so let's manually remove the category from wherever it is still being used, and then speedy it. Debresser (talk) 13:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Debresser (talk) 13:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Warning
As to your removal of the speedy tag from Template:R to template. Please see Criteria_for_speedy_deletion which says in bold letters: The creator of a page may not remove a Speedy Delete tag from it. Debresser (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Then that is a ridiculous rule. The speedy deletion nomination was based on incorrect reasons, therefore it should not have been there in the first place. If Wikipedia policy says I cannot remove an incorrect speedy deletion tag from a page just because I created the page, then I simply refuse to bow to Wikipedia bureaucracy.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  16:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a redirect
Thank you for bringing this one to my attention. I want to start using it, but I have a concern. I've always wondered why it is so important to place single Rcats on the same line as the REDIRECT code. And some say to put a space between them, while others say no space. None of this seems outwardly to make a diff, because you can put an Rcat two lines down and it will still appear to do its job. In any case, I note that the style guide has us placing This is a redirect two lines down, and my concern is: Why doesn't this template have to go on the first line like the other Rcats? I mean, if there's some hidden Wikimarkup reason why it's so important that single Rcats should go on the first line, then why is this template exempt from that hidden reason? &mdash;  Paine  Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX  )  17:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think originally the redirect templates didn't display properly if they were not placed on the first line but I don't think that's a problem any more. When I started the style guide, I wrote that in as a guideline just for consistency. I think the documentation of This is a redirect said to place it two lines down from the redirect mark-up; I'm not sure why. Either way, it doesn't affect the appearance but it is the way I've been doing it for a while now so I will continue to do it just for consistency. However, it doesn't really matter if you follow the style guide or not. This is a redirect could use some fixing up. It has lots of currently unused functions which require extra script in the redirect templates and redirect pages. They could be simplified to work automatically without too much extra typing.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  17:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Speaking of extra typing, I see that you like to type in the full name, ie, "This is a redirect", rather than using the "redr" shortcut.  Personal preference?  Clarity for new editors?  I knew this was a good template with grand potential the moment I saw that it had survived a Tfd!>)  &mdash;   Paine  Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX  )  17:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I just dislike template redirects for a reason still unknown to me. However, in the case of this template, the full name does help those who have not seen it before. I would prefer it were called Redirect but that name's already taken.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  17:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's very interesting! As if your subconscious is trying to tell you something.  It's a pretty easy search to find out what a shortcut means.  And Redirect is very useful.  Anyway, in order to get rid of the comment clutter, I archived the present version of the template at Template:This is a redirect/code, just to keep the explanatory comments for future reference.  Then I trashed all the comments in one of my sandboxes, User:Paine Ellsworth/Sandbox4, as well as removed the "custom parameter a".  The "a" and the text noting the usage of up to four redirect categories only shows up on the diff pages, and so is not very useful.  Better to note the limitation on the /doc page and leave it at that, I think.  I created a redirect at User:Paine Ellsworth/Sandbox3 to be able to test my "code-only" version in Sandbox4, and it works just like the live version.  But there's still one tiny problem with both my Sandbox4 version and the live version:
 * If one enters an Rcat that defaults to the Unprintworthy cat, and then places "printworthy" in another parameter, both the Unprintworthy and the Printworthy categories are populated. In other words, even though, say, R from plural is added, which can subdue its default Unprintworthy cat by adding a first parameter to it like this:  , there is no way to subdue the default Unprintworthy in the This is a redirect template.  I'm working on that.  &mdash;   Paine  Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX  )  19:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and removed some parameters that will never be used. I also removed all the explanatory text. The template requires extra code to be used in the redirect templates so it would be easier if that text became the normal text. I created Redirect template to help standardise the redirect templates. I'll edit it so that the explanations begin with bullet points. Hopefully, it will work and we can live happily ever after.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  06:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've tried several things, but I don't know enough about the code to be able to subdue the Unprintworthy redirects cat and leave the Printworthy redirects cat alone on its own in this template. So it seems that when we have a redirect that is a printworthy plural, we'll have to continue to use the Rcat individually, as in , up on the first line.  Cheers!  &mdash;  Paine Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX  )  16:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * PS. Good job removing the clutter!

By the way, have you noticed the difference that your Redirect template has made in the Template messages/Redirect pages alphabetical index? It looks like a very positive and good modification to me. Instead of whitespace, then a line, then the explanatory text, one sees just your bullet and then the text. Looks much better! &mdash; Paine Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX  )  17:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Notification
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you are involved. Thank you.

"Here Comes the Sun"
Hi, I reverted back your reversion of my edit; we should not use individual retailers as a sign of a song's popularity, be they the "largest digital music retailer" or a physical store like Walmart (that's what I meant by "it's not a reliable source for sales information"). Instead, we use statistics from indepedent chart companies such Billboard or the British Official Charts Company.`—indopug (talk) 06:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Online retailers are an exception in my opinion. iTunes has its own chart, whereas a supermarket does not. The significance of the charting was to do with the fact the Beatles' music was only just released on iTunes. iTunes is the only thing charting the sales of the Beatles' songs because it is the only place selling them individually, so we can't use an independent record chart.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  06:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * From WP:Charts, "Charts pertaining to only one specific retailer (such as iTunes, Amazon.com or Wal-Mart) should not be used." Besides, remember that this is an article about the Abbey Road album, so this level of detail about one song is not merited anyway (not that the info should be in song's article either, of course).—indopug (talk) 07:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you there: if it deserves a place, it's on Here Comes the Sun. I didn't realise WP:Charts said that. I'm not sure I agree but consensus seems to be against it so I yield. Thanks.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  07:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Template text
Please stop removing explanatory text from the template as you did at R to plural. That info is helpful when an editor looks these up in the index. &mdash; Paine Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX  )  07:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * We do not design templates for index pages. I didn't remove the information, I just moved it to the documentation. Unnecessary amounts of information about redirect categories can be placed in the documentation and category itself. The templates look better short. More information can be added to the index page if necessary.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  07:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I disagree. We design templates for more than just one reason.  An index is useful information about the templates, and that information only shows up in the index if it is actually in the template.  You did remove the information from the template and the template index.  You also removed the category that the template is supposed to populate.  Please be more careful.  &mdash;  Paine Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX  )  07:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * PS. I transferred this conversation to the appropriate Talk page.

British Bands
I would like to firstly state that the bands I have changed in the past are British, they did not have English passports they have/had British passports. They are not all English either, Ian Stewart of the Rolling Stones and Stuart Sutcliffe of The Beatles are Scottish. This makes the bands more fundamentally British. Great Britain has four countries, not just England. The flags they have used in the past I.e. The Rolling Stones use the Union Jack, not St. Georges cross. DPaulCC (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I know what Britain is. The flag that a band uses somewhere is irrelevant. If the Rolling Stones used an American flag somewhere does that mean we have to say they're American? The Beatles always identified as being English or, more specifically, Liverpuddlian. The Beatles article says they're English. Until you can get that changed by consensus, all their other articles should say they're English too.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  04:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It was seen as the British invasion not the English invasion when The Beatles took America by storm. I am not disputing that the largest percentage of The Beatles were English, because they were. They hailed from Liverpool in England which is in the United Kingdom. That is like saying Steve Irwin is form Victoria not Australia. Would you agree to say that they are British as well? Like they are a mostly English Band from Britain (as it is more correct) or At least acknowledge the Scots that where in these bands? DPaulCC (talk) 13:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, Sutcliffe left the band before they got a record contract so that barely counts towards their nationality. Of course it is correct to say that they are British but it is more specific to say they are English. Victoria is a state of Australia, whereas England is a country, just not a sovereign state. See Nationality of people from the United Kingdom for Wikipedia guidelines about this (the guideline basically says "do whatever").  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  07:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You mean not just a sovereign state? It may be a country but is also a sovereign state. Just because he left the band before they were big doesn't mean that he wasn't an important part of the band. Paul McCartneys famous violin bass was a gift form Stuart, and he toured Germany with them where they obviously "famous" to german gangsters and Liverpudlians. Also Pete best was one of the most important people in The Beatles and in music in general and he was replaced by Ringo. Pete was the reason a lot of the people in Liverpool went to go see The Beatles in the First Place.
 * What about The Rolling Stones then Ian Stewart was one of the founding members so that makes The Stones only three quarters English then? or that Ian is an Englishman?
 * If the wikipedia guidelines say "do whatever" then why are you changing my edits saying they are against wikipedia guidelines? DPaulCC (talk) 12:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * England is not a sovereign state; the UK is the sovereign state. Also, I never said your edits were against Wikipedia guidelines. One does not have to be born in England to be English. Sutcliffe moved to Liverpool when he was three years old. He is basically English as is Pete Best. The nationality of the musicians in a band does not necessarily decide the band's nationality. The Beatles and the Rolling Stones originated in England. The Police are also English despite one of the Police being American.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  14:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes you did "Hello. Please stop changing "English" to "British". They are English so there is absolutely no reason to change this. In fact, it is against Wikipedia guidelines. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. McLerristarr | Mclay1 15:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)" That is what you said, either way they are still British. DPaulCC (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * So I did. Well, the Wikipedia guidelines do say to not change it unless there is a consensus to do so and, at the moment, there isn't consensus. 07:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I would vote in favor of changing it to British also. English is a lanugage, not a country. British is the sovereign state that issues British passports. Accordingly, the consensus it that it should be changed!

Fiatlux5762 05:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiatlux5762 (talk • contribs)
 * English is of course not a country; England is the country (see Countries of the United Kingdom). If you mean English is not a nationality, then by your same logic French, German, Italian and countless other nationalities are not actually nationalities because they're the names of languages. Two people one my talk page is not a consensus. Please take this to Talk:The Beatles if you want to change the current consensus of calling them English.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  06:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

San Marino
Hi there. You seem to be an experienced user, but I'm mystified by your revert of my edit at San Marino. Can you explain to me why claiming that your source is "better" means that those I added are invalid? Unless you can prove that those sources are unreliable, you should have started a discussion on the talk page instead of just reverting me. Regards  So Why  19:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * On a side note, you might want to have a look at some official decrees of San Marino like this or this (which I picked at random from ). Granted, they are not the Encyclopedia Britannica but then again, shouldn't the government know best what the official name of their own country is? Regards  So Why  20:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I have started a thread at Talk:San Marino.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  07:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Invitation
I have reopened the discussion about two blank lines before stub templates here. Since I noticed you have taken an interest in this subject before, I cordially invite you to join there. Debresser (talk) 10:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:R to poet
Template:R to poet has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Film and Television Project redirects
I have nominated Category:Film Project redirects and Category:Television Project redirects for deletion here. Since you had nominated the categories originally, I thought you might be interested. Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 08:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

"The" versus "the Beatles"
There is a vote taking place in which we could use your input. — GabeMc (talk) 00:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Greetings, Mclay1, would you like to change your "unsure" vote to either "Support" or "Oppose", please? As I commented below your note, it sounded like you hadn't looked at the article yet to see whether or not it was working. If you take a look at the article, you will have what you need to vote in either direction. Thanks.  —Prhartcom   (talk)  00:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto, etc
Let's see what happens on the discussion page before deciding what is the primary topic. Let's point everything at the dab page for now. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * But that's a clear violation of Wikipedia guidelines. Grand Theft Auto cannot redirect to Grand Theft Auto (disambiguation); it would have to be the other way around.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  11:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hence my new proposal of moving Grand Theft Auto (disambiguation) to Grand Theft Auto or Grand theft auto --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)