User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 59

Deleted image NFUR check
Hi Sphilbrick... I hope you are well. I was wondering if you could help: Could you please let me know what the issue was with the NFUR of File:MiltonShapp.gif. I know you had nothing to do with its deletion, I'm asking more about whether there was an oddity in the NFUR. I ask because of 2015092010009614, where I undertook to help out a retired State of Pennsylvania official in submitting some images (this is the same issue as C:Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2015/10). It looks like we're not going to be able to upload the images to Commons (though it's likely they might be PD-US-not renewed or PD-US-no notice, so it's unfortunate), but there is one of Milton Shapp that we could probably use as Fair Use. Also, if you could make a value judgment about whether the deleted image is better than the image in the ticket, I'd appreciate it very much. Thanks, Storkk (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The deletion of the image was due to 10c, which requires identification of an article. This is mildly puzzling. I noticed that the deletion was in 2008 so I thought perhaps it preceded the article but the article has been around longer, so I don't know whether it was simply that the person filling out the form failed to identify the article of whether something else was going on.


 * For that reason, I think restoration of that image should not be a problem, except for the fact that if free images are available we prefer to use free images.


 * The deleted image was a rather small black and white photo only 4K in size. The one in the OTRS ticket is also black and white, a similar pose, taken at eight different time but a better resolution. The second photo is not a perfect photo as it shows, to my untrained eyes a bit of graininess, but I think it is far better than the deleted version.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking! I will upload the one in the ticket. On an unrelated note, this edit to your userpage was probably meant for your user talk. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 13:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks, I did miss that message — I just dropped a note to the person asking.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

New Jersey Forest Fire Service
Hi, I was checking WP:DYKSTATS. I saw article New Jersey Forest Fire Service featured on main page for DYK and got 46,000+ views. But shocked to see it red link. As your delete summary says it was created by banned user, still can you restore the article in good faith? After all our main aim is to increase coverage of various topics on Wikipedia and we are celebrating 5 million articles. So I think you can restore it in good faith. If article is having some issues of notability or else then we can go for AfD. Cheers. -- Human 3015   TALK   23:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents -- S Philbrick (Talk)  00:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Women's college basketball team roster formats with "Lady" in team name
Hey. Has there ever been any template for those few women's teams that use the "Lady" in their names to override the "women's" bit? I noticed those created in the past say "Lady women's basketball team", which wrong, long and a mouthful. Seems like I remember the same problem with infobox formats. —  Wylie pedia  03:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and no. Sorry for the useless answer, but my monitor just dies so I have to get a replacement. I'll provide a more useful, though still complicated answer in a couple hours.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * There is sort of the ability to suppress "women" if the team name includes "Lady", but it's a bit of a kludge and it doesn't always work.


 * If you look at the source of Infobox NCAA team season/name you will see that there is a list of teams for which a conversion takes place. It is a terrible way to accomplish this, and worse, even though it seems to work in the example for UMass, if you check out 2014–15_UMass_Minutewomen_basketball_team, you'll see that it doesn't correctly work there.


 * It does work in some cases, for example 2013–14_Central_Arkansas_Sugar_Bears_basketball_team.


 * If you check out Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_128 You'll see I started trying to solving the problem. Unfortunately, the editor with the technical experts expertise got himself blocked and I haven't returned to the issue.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Good idea, and thanks for the link. I think I'll make a new VPT request and copy this section of your page there, so (1) it's easier for me, and (2) you get credit for doing the legwork.  Nyttend (talk) 23:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Every cloud has a silver lining :) Thanks. -- S Philbrick (Talk)  03:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

JtV G5's
Hi Sphilbrick -

I'm not exactly the greatest fan of JtV - I've blocked him more than anyone else at least under the name JtV as far as I know - but I don't think we benefit in any way from deleting vetted good articles that have gone through review processes that involve significant time investments from people other than the original editor, and don't think such articles fall under G5. I'm sorry for not consulting with you about it first, but restored Neepaulakating_Creek based on 's claim that he had systematically fact-checked the article, and that it had good article status. If other similar cases come up, I'm liable to restore them, too. G5 is meant to remove the work of a banned editor sure, but not to damage the work of other unbanned editors in the process. IMO no article that passed GAR could fit G5, although if active hoaxing is discovered even articles with a dozen contributors (but where JtV is one) may need widespread mini-nukes. Jacob says he already individually factchecked everything in the article about the creek, and I've already partially (and intend to fully) do the same in the article about the Church (which Drmies passed at GAR.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You go ahead and do whatever you want. When an admin deletes an article, it is polite and I think policy to discuss it with the admin before reversing the decision. This technically should apply even if the deletion was an error but certainly applies when the deletion was following prescribed rules. That may be good reason for ignoring those rules or balancing competing considerations. I have enormous respect for some of those who support keeping these articles and understand their point. My issues isn't the decision to restore the article it is the decision to overturn an admin action without contacting the admin. More than once. I don't understand the actions of you and to overturn the actions of an admin with out even contacting me. You did it yesterday, apologize and then did it again!!! I am so close to blocking you, it isn't funny. Luckily, I have to go out for the evening, so I'll not take any action now. and maybe I'll calm down.


 * I hope you sign up to spend more time working on the deletion log - I'm going to work on articles and let the admins who can't be bothered to talk to others pick up the slack.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  22:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sphil, just because you checked off a CSD box doesn't mean the deletion was in line with the CSD box you checked off. I doubt you can find many people who would argue that an article that has undergone a GAR and extensive review beyond that qualifies as a G5.  This isn't an issue of me IAR restoring an article - it was not an appropriate G5 to begin with.  It was a misapplication of the criteria.  In this case, this was the second restoration I performed of a G5 deletion you made out of process.  As far as I'm concerned, I should absolutely have notified you before restoring the first article of the series that you mistakenly G5'ed, but after that, especially knowing your attention had been brought explicitly to the issue already if the same exact issue did (or does) apply to any other G5's in the same sequence, it'd be perfectly reasonable for any admin to restore them.  You're the deleting admin, and your attention was already drawn explicitly to the issue where you had (have) the chance to put your viewpoint forward.  That's, in large part, the purpose of informing the deleting admin in the first place.  Since I don't really appreciate admins threatening to block me for restoring CSD's they conducted out of process, I am not going to bother informing you of any futher inappropriate JtV G5's that I restore.


 * Please don't do anything silly like blocking me. I have significant respect for you, do not want to see you throw your toolset away just because you're annoyed at me at the moment, and am a bit confounded by your reaction. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't get to declare that you are no longer required to notify me simply because I expressed that I'm pissed off at you. I was, and it is increasing. Who on earth elected you king and decided you could make blanket changes to policies and norms on your own?


 * The curious thing is that had you asked, I would have been more than happy to restore the articles to have a more thorough discussion. I'm not annoyed that the articles were restored, I'm annoyed that you don't have the common courtesy to discuss. You aren't a newbie, you should know how this place is supposed to work.


 * ... Actually, I'm never required to notify you when I reverse one of your deletions. It's common courtesy to do so, there's no hard and fast rule about it.  In questionable cases, I would universally ask for feedback from the deleting admin, while in cases where deletion was clearly incorrect, I'd simply politely notify them like I did here. I would not normally nitpick that much, but you are both taking issue over nothing, nitpicking, and pointing out that I'm not a newbie and should know how this place is supposed to work even though I had to just sign your own post for you. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Missing GA
Can you please explain Featured article candidates/Christ Church, Newton/archive1? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Is your question literally about the archive about which I know nothing or Christ Church, Newton, which was created by a blocked user and therefore deleted?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  00:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It is about why a good article was deleted, yes, also why it still appears as a blue link, disappointing readers who want to read about this building. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 2. Looks red to me, 1. asked and answered.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  00:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks red in the FAC but blue in the GAN (to me). Do we have to delete content with good article quality attested by a respected editor such as Drmies who is a critical reviewer, compare Talk:Jauchzet Gott in allen Landen, BWV 51/GA1? It would seem a disservice to our readers (to me). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 01:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Assuming GAN means Good_article_nominations, I'm not following. It was a good article, why would it be on the nomination page? Where do you see it as a blue link, and why does that matter?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  01:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Speaking of Drmies, have you had any contact with him? He is one of the first Wikipedians I met in RL, and I'm distressed that he is not around. I'd love to hear his thoughts on this article, and the related policy.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  01:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey Sphilbrick, good to see you again. I just commented on ANI; sorry for disagreeing with you. I tried to address what I think are the salient points, but I did so only briefly. I did have to read up on ColonelHenry, who I was only sideways involved with--they had many unpleasant interactions. I'm sort of in and out, still being somewhat disenchanted with the entire project and some of those who run it. I think it's clear now that some actually do more or less run it. I hope you're doing well; most likely I'm not gone for good though I tell you, it's kind of nice and quiet to be away. Best, Drmies (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Good to hear from you, and glad to hear you're not fully gone. I have lots of thoughts on the disenchantment issue but will hold them at the moment. No need to apologize for disagreeing with me. I'm disappointed that I tried to raise five broad areas of discussion and there's virtually no discussion of any of the underlying issues except the specific case of this article.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We've had similar discussions before in various places--certainly pertaining to the case of the "Best known for IP", who's been mass-rollbacked more than once. The positions are clear and we're all somewhat intransigent: make a block/ban count and revert thus not enabling the blocked/banned editor, or judge on a case by case basis for the good of the encyclopedia. I'm firmly in the latter camp, and have used mass-rollback on blocked editors only when the edits are bad. There's an IP editor out there messing up articles on media from the Philippines; those edits are bad. There's ProudIrishAspie, who kept on making the same disruptive edits under a variety of names; I've mass-rollbacked their socks' edits. But in all those cases I go through a significant number of them to see if my rollback doesn't make those articles worse. All the best, Drmies (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, a recent example is Huge456, whom I was itching to mass-rollback, but not all of their edits (many of them adding categories to BLPs) were unverified, so I couldn't bring myself to do it, though it would be good for my edit count, which is seriously suffering these days... Drmies (talk) 21:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Drmies: if you care to look up my sad list of those who "just gave up" (top of my talk, under "singing the praises of the banned ..."), his name is the first. I use temptations like this ping to attract his attention. I am sorry that I sloppily said GAN for "GA review". Drmies wrote a good review of a good article. In the review, the article appears as a red link. The result was promoted to GA, it is in the list of GAs, where it appears blue but when you click it shows deleted. I have two questions:
 * Technically, why does the same deleted article show red here, blue there?
 * Do we have to delete good content, even if something is allegedly wrong with its author?


 * I just started Beati, after singing it in a church service, "happy are those whose way is perfect", - we are all not perfect. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Please see Requests_for_undeletion where I responded in more detail.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, I've opened the discussion on ANI here.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 21:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Re: Not appropriate
What's the article? I don't know what page you mean. Nyttend (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * New Jersey Forest Fire Service -- S Philbrick (Talk)  22:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link; I'd forgotten about that page. So, given the numerous edits by numerous other editors, including making substantive changes such as adding citations, how is this a page that has had "no substantial edits by others", to quote the criterion?  Nyttend (talk) 22:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point. The point isn't whether the article ought to be restored. Do I need to state the point once more? Neither you nor Kevin seem to get it.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  22:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me be clear: when you delete an article that's far from qualifying for the criterion you cite, and when it's not an obvious candidate under some other criterion (i.e. you didn't just pick the wrong criterion by accident), there is no reason to chat first before overturning the very bad deletion. Nyttend (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me be clear. When overturning a deletion because a problem has been cured (deletion due to lack of copyright, followed by an OTRS filing), no notification to the deleting admin is needed. They didn't make a mistake. But when it turns on a disagreement about the application of the criteria, discussion is critical. If you are absolutely sure the deleting admin simply made a mistake, then restore and notify. If there is any ambiguity (as there is in this case), discuss first. This should be done partly because it is polite, and partly because if an admin is deleting in error, then feedback is necessary for education. Restoration alone, when you disagree with the deletion rationale, without notification, simply allows errors to continue.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  22:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No ambiguity existed: this was very far from an article that had gotten no substantial edits by anyone except the banned creator. You have already been given enough education through the discussion at the admin boards, and you've demonstrated your willingness to be educated here by threatening to block another administrator for undoing your deletion.  Here's your feedback: don't threaten to commit a blatant WP:INVOLVED violation, especially when you've been found to have made some badly out-of-process deletions.  Nyttend (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Your facts are wrong. By edit count, the article had 56 edits by JackTheVicar, and 13 by all other editors combined. By byte count, which is imperfect, it is even more dramatic - it looks like over 99% of the content was by JackTheVicar. The notion that that a couple of typo fixes and one reference qualify as "substantial edits" is a torturing of the English language, and, if supported,would create a magnificent loophole for banned users. All they have to do is persuade some friend to add one citation, and it is exempt from G5? Seriously?


 * However, I'm falling into the trap of discussing the article, when that isn't the point. The point is, when you disagree with an admin's action, you should discuss it, so one or the other or both can learn from it. Do you disagree with this metarule?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  03:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Once again, you were already in the middle of a discussion of this topic: you had already been alerted to it, but you insist that repeated alerts were necessary on my part. You deleted an article that had plenty of contributions, including several significant ones, from other editors, but you throw a fit when your action is overturned.  You keep beating a dead horse with this matter and threaten to block someone who follows our ordinary procedure of overturning a bad deletion.  You deleted an article that doesn't qualify for deletion, and you tell the person who overturned you that he doesn't understand the criterion.  I'm here to build an encyclopedia, not to waste time with someone who's wikilawyering.  Nyttend (talk) 03:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, your facts are wrong. I was involved in a discussion at ANI about Christ Church, Newton. I tried to make the discussion broader, bringing up categories and images, and general discussion of G5 but that isn't how the discussion went. It narrowly focused on Christ church; note the closing statement which only refers to a single article. The fire service article was brought to my attention above but at the time it was a red link and I urged them to join the ANI discussion. Unfortunately, as noted, that discussion did not go into the broader issues but only talked about one article. You decided to restore a different article which was not mentioned on that page. I only became aware of it because I glanced at my user page and noticed that the red link had turned blue. Yes, you should have talked to me before restoring it. Even if you felt your position were so solid it didn't require prior discussion, you should've notified me. I accept that the community decided the Christchurch article deserved restoration. But there is nothing in that discussion this suggests that everything written by this editor should be retained. If it isn't the banned editor it should be retained but that hasn't been concluded. If the community wants to decide that everything written by this editor should be restored I'll abide by that but that isn't what they concluded. Until they do if you choose to reverse a deletion decision, you are expected, per Administrators to communicate. Please do so.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  03:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Um, what? You seriously tried to G5 delete an article about a US State's forest fire service? Even if most of the material in it was by a banned user, common sense would say "stubbify" in to 1-2 paragraphs if you don't have time to do the verification yourself, or throw it up on a board where people can.  Even if it were an otherwise legit G5, New Jersey Forest Fire Service is an article that's really hard to justify G5ing without at least replacing with a stub with a straight face... Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Kevin, you really need to acquaint yourself with the CSD guidelines. G5 specifies some exceptions, the US State's forest fire service is not one of them. Such a response suggests you misunderstand the rationale. When you make statements like "a GAR by the respected Drmies means the article isn't G5able" you err twice, once in thinking that any editor gets to modify policy by declaration, and second, for thinking that G5 is somehow about quality. Perhaps it should be, but it isn't (wrt articles), so you evince a fundamental misunderstanding of the policy.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  02:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * For the article about the fire service, by following the exact letter of policy, yes you can probably G5 it. Common sense says instead of G5ing an article about a US state's forest fire service so that our users have no information about the topic whatsoever, you should spend a whole two minutes and rewrite a brief stub.  Is what you did for the fire service article technically correct? Yes.  Is it in the interests of the encyclopedia? Not at all. Regarding the articles that actually underwent things like successful GA reviews?  Applying G5 to those cases is not at all reasonable. Admins are expected to exercise reasonable discretion for the good of the encyclopedia.  You didn't do that here.  On top of that, threatening to block an admin for reversing one of your deletions? Seriously? Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Good grief, how many times can I say it? You concede that my deletion followed policy. I am not interested in slavishly following policy in every case - if that article deserves to be an exception, I am open to discussion. But that's the slavish part of policy I want to follow: Communication. Reversing a deletion and failing to talk to the deleting admin is a failure of communication.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  03:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * BTW, I am very open to a discussion about whether articles who have gone through a GAR should be exempt from G5. But the proper way to do that is to do that. Have a disucssion in the proper place. Try this thought experiment - a year from now some new admin deletes a GA because it was created by a banned editor and they get smacked around because they failed to search the ANI archives and every talk page of every admin on the chance that the policy was modified but the change was not mentioned on the CSD page. Does that seem fair? If you want to modify the CSD policy, then modify the CSD policy; you can't simply declare that there's a new exception and expect everyone to know about it. Heaven knows we can overdo bureaucracy, but sometimes there is a good reason it it.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  03:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I conceded that one of your deletions followed policy (i.e., the fire service one) - I just thought you failed to take advantage of the opportunity to simply stubbify the article, deprive the blocked of his apparent glory, and still serve our readers. I don't at all agree that deleting articles that have achieved GA status is appropriate in most circumstances by policy or in the best interests of the encyclopedia in most circumstances - WP:BANREVERT makes quite explicit the discretion inherent in G5, and since GAR is a non-trivial process, the written policy suggests the reviewers be notified and their effort considered in any final decision (which, a bit amusingly, is phrased in a similar fashion to what you were complaining about me not following above...) Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's an excellent point Kevin (BANREVERT ). Now if I could only figure out how to communicate to you that I'm not concerned about the propriety of the restoration but about the failure to communicate. Your link demonstrates exactly why communication is critical. The CSD criteria themselves don't say anything about notifying contributors to the talk page of a deleted article. I'd be willing to bet that most CSD taggers don't know this is part of the process. I didn't, until now. If the deleted article is simply restored with out communication to either the tag or whether the deleting admin how on earth would they learn this?-- S Philbrick  (Talk)  14:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * See Sphil... I did communicate to you. I just communicated to you at the time I took what I believed was a really obviously good path to take.  There's no requirement at all that I communicate to you beforehand, especially in obvious cases.  My first post here explained my reasoning and why I thought there was no ambiguity, and by the end of the communication you've both realized WP:BANREVERT exists, had several people suggest to you that the way you handled it was suboptimal, and... for some odd reason threatened to block me.  I've communicated with you from the first article I restored and don't see how it could be portrayed differently. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've had enough. Please drop it.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  22:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Request for copy of 'The Regressive Left' article
Hello there,

I see that you deleted this article, and I was hoping I could get a copy of it from you. This term was coined by Maajid Nawaz and is frequently used by New Atheists and notable people like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. I would like to take a look and see if the article (as it was) could be salvaged or if an entire re-write is warranted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=The+Regressive+Left&year=&month=-1&tagfilter= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Regressive_Left

Thank you for your time and assitance. Likeminas (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I sent a copy to your email.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  18:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Something else
Thia has nothing to do with Nyttend. An editor when creating college basketball articles is frequently creating redlinks to nonexistent categories at the same time. He's been asked nicely to stop or create the categories by me, and Bearcat but he made further such edits today after my post to his talk page. Here is an example I also think he's the sockpuppet of a banned User and posted to Bearcat's talk page about it but Bearcat doesn't appear interested. In all my editing here, I think I started an SPI just once or twice so I am not real good at it. Would you like to handle this or do you have some suggestions?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification - I'm wrapping up for the evening and have surgery scheduled tomorrow morning, so will try to look into it later tomorrow.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  02:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Good luck with your surgery. There is rush with this matter. You can get back to me when you're totally well and rested....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * When you're feeling well enough, could you please see to his this editor. He has twice, here and here, restored redlinks to categories after he has been not to do redlinks multiple times. He is almost certainly a sockpuppet of banned User Dereks1x. That User did college basketball articles and had two confirmed sockpuppet accounts starting with the name Lewis....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
Request to revisit the discussion. North America1000 08:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for alerting me but I don't really have anything useful to add. As noted, I raised it because a reader brought it to our attention that it was being used in a scam. When my initial review failed to identify sources I could look at and confirm that he was legitimate, I was concerned. However, editors have identified enough quality references (I presume I haven't checked them personally but I trust you) to suggest that the article itself is fine although someone is using it for a scam. That in itself, of course, is not a valid reason for removal.If anyone has thoughts on what could be done to reduce the likelihood it is used in a scam please share, but nothing jumps out at me, and ultimately it isn't our responsibility if someone uses material in Wikipedia irresponsibly.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, I ended up dropping a comment at the AFD, which was appropriately closed as keep.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  23:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

2 in 1 PC vs 2-in-1 PC
Thanks for moving "laplet" to "2 in 1 PC", but it probably should be "2-in-1 PC". Because "2 in 1" is being used as a compound modifier in front of PC. See also MOS:HYPHEN. PaleAqua (talk) 04:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As I just noted on the talk page I wasn't the one who specified the target. There's a template which identifies the page to be moved and the target location and I simply click it to carry it out. I didn't notice who requested the move, but they or anyone else can try again.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Currently the RM on the talk page is still open assumed you were the process of closing when I saw the move, didn't realize it was in response to a speedy. Probably should be closed properly as moves before the discussions were contested. PaleAqua (talk) 15:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah the light goes on. No, I didn't even realize there was a request move in process. I responded to a speedy request. It occurs to me I don't even know the template used, so I'll have to make a point of checking it out next time. If I knew the name of the template I'd suggest that you simply fill out one with the correct name. If you'd do not know the name I'm not quite sure what the next step should be; as an admin I have the technical ability to do a move, and I have done many, but I have never done a move over an existing article except by following the template. I guess I could figure it out but I'd prefer to use the template.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You probably responsed to an RMassist template, but those are only supposed to be used on the WP:RM/TR page afaik. See this rejected one for example . PaleAqua (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * it is most likely it was a db-move template, which showed up at Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion-- S Philbrick (Talk)  23:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah that would make sense and why I wouldn't be able to find it as the page it got put on got deleted. Thanks. PaleAqua (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, that's part of the reason it took me so long to respond. The template disappears when the action is carried out, and I don't believe is recorded in the history. I literally opened up a number of entries at the CSD page and kept looking through until I found it. For the record, I'm not opposed to the change you suggest. If someone uses that template are carried out immediately, if someone wants me to fix it some other way I'll have to look into it because I am not perfectly clear on what needs to happen, and have too many other things going on to take the time to look into it.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  00:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries; Mike Cline closed the RM and already took care of moving the page. I hope you don't mind if I suggest double checking the talk pages of pages to be moved as a result of a db-move in the future in case there is an open RM. PaleAqua (talk) 04:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm going to push back a little bit. I appreciate that the suggestion was made politely. And there is zero question that had I taken a couple extra steps in this case, we could've saved a little work. On the surface that sounds like an argument in support of doing the extra work. However, I've done thousands of deletions, many of which require steps to ascertain that the deletion request is valid, but I've also done thousands of deletions where the deletion template asserts that it is uncontroversial maintenance. The entire point of using that template is to save the effort necessary to do an in-depth investigation. Out of these thousands, I think this is the second time that there have been complications. In another case, an assertion of uncontroversial maintenance was used for an orphaned redirect to an image, and subsequent investigation revealed that it's not quite as simple as it appeared. Essentially, your suggestion boils down to saying "ignore the assertion of uncontroversial maintenance and do a full review on every deletion request." That would add a considerable time if we have to do a more in-depth review on every uncontroversial maintenance request. In fact, the odds are that the next time I see one I will probably glance at the talk page to see if there's a request, but I don't know how long I will keep that up. In most cases, roughly 99.9% of deletion requests with an uncontroversial maintenance template are actually uncontroversial.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)