User talk:Steel1943/Archive 20

Trademark redirects, again
Just FYI, as disappointing as the last outcome was, I intend to at least renominate those that are not direct matches. BD2412 T 22:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC) The first set is aimed at redirects combining an ® with a parenthetical disambiguator. BD2412 T 00:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. If need be, I could see if I can find some redirects that contain "(r)" in their titles. Steel1943  (talk) 23:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I would handle those separately. I do want to be careful not to end up setting precedents in the wrong direction. BD2412  T 23:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * My apologies; I meant to be more specific in my previous comment, but apparently removed more of the comment I had typed than I thought I had. I meant to say I was going to see if I could find "(r)" titles that have corresponding "®" titles in the recently closed RFD nomination. (But I think I get what you mean: Best avoid another WP:TRAINWRECK if possible.) Steel1943  (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I would also like to propose blacklisting new titles containing copyright or trademark symbols, per the MOS, so they can not be created without admin review. Keep the worms in the can, as it were. BD2412  T 23:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Taking out the trash
Thanks for sweeping out the cobwebs with all the RfD nominations. GA-RT-22 (talk) 22:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Rosalía (singer)
Hello, I am passing by to ask what relisting exactly means; does it have to do with my last comment? I can remove it in that case. I don't engage much in discussions so I'm not very aware of the rules. Thx. 7szz (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * See WP:RELIST. Steel1943  (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Doing alright, friend?
-- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 03:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Songs about religion etc.
This debate did need closing, but the votes! stacking 6/3 (including nominator) hardly counts as no consensus and one of those admitting that they added entries because of the title, rather that WP:CATV. This hardly passes as 'no consensus'. Perhaps you would be kind enough to reconsider your closing? Here is my synopsis of the comments:- IMO, Deleting as WP:TNT would be better, at least it removes all the OR entries - some of which were discussed in the discussion. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Nominator's rationale: Ridiculous nonsense in the usual "Songs about [word in title or in lyrics]"-theme, which is redundant with existing categories (most notably Category:Religious songs).
 * 2) Delete per nom
 * 3) Delete per nom
 * 4) Keep -- Why single out topics of faith?  (This editor was taken to task for ignoring WP guidelines and adding because of a word  in the title/song.)
 * 5) Weak delete (if kept heavily purge),
 * 6) Delete per nom and Marco
 * 7) Keep Category being filled up with entries that dont belong isn't reason for deletion
 * 8) Keep Category:Songs about religion, as a useful parent category which has some valid articles in it too.
 * 9) Delete. (editor taken to task with a ‘why?’)


 * Seconded. None of the keep !votes even addressed the fact (given in the nomination, if a bit obliquely) that the categories do not even serve the basic purpose of categories, which is to link related entries together, owing to the fact that beyond some mere triviality in the title or mention in the lyrics of a given topic or word, the songs do not otherwise have much if any commonality as a result of this fact (and in many cases, the category also failed WP:DEFCAT). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Since IDGAF, I reopened it. Thanks all for reminding me why Wikipedia is a dramatic time sink. Keep at it! Steel1943  (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mindy McCready (disambiguation)


The article Mindy McCready (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "One is just the singer's self titled album, the other is something that can be hatnoted."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * For what its worth, I created this page 8 years ago under the assumption that the subject at Mindy McCready (character) would eventually become more notable, but alas, that subject's notability was as temporary as the Kick-Ass film's notability, it seems. I'm going to WP:G7 it. Steel1943  (talk) 04:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

CfD backlog
As a follow-up on Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion, are you interested in closing CfD discussions yourself? Or was it rather meant as a general complaint? ( please ping me when replying ) Marcocapelle (talk) 21:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It was the former (feel free to see my more recent edits for further details), but since losing all drive and care to edit Wikipedia proactively, consider it the latter. (I will be archiving this discussion immediately after posting this response.) Steel1943  (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Joe McBride (musician)
Hello, Steel1943. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Joe McBride (musician), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

"Editing a protected page" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Editing a protected page and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 9 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect RFD
Since you fixed my error with GMU, maybe you can straighten-out the mess at this RFD also. Thanks. MB 22:14, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Steel1943  (talk) 22:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Potential new CSD
Hey there Steel1943, it's me from that upcoming films RfD a week ago. I've been thinking about our exchange regarding a potential speedy deletion criterion for formerly untitled/upcoming media, and I'm starting to seriously consider proposing one. My question to you is, (a) do you know where the appropriate venue to propose new speedy deletion criteria is, and (b) do you think such a proposal will garner support from the masses? InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:32, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Here ya go...
 * (a): WT:CSD
 * (b): Not sure, but I'm not optimistic. For best results and to avoid follow-up questions, I would recommend pointing out minor exceptions to such a criterion in the initial statement. In my experiences, the usual opposes to new speedy criteria involve edit history concerns, incoming links, and page views; also, in this case, something out of left field regarding these redirects in general such as the redirect's age may affect such a proposal passing.
 * Can't hurt to try though; there's obviously tons of precedence for such a criterion existing. However, I would recommend looking at...
 * Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 77, and...
 * Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 77
 * ...prior to starting a discussion. Steel1943  (talk) 16:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The pageviews argument is pretty weak in my opinion, and those two prior discussions only had minimal participation. Let's see if we can do better, I'll let you know when I start the discussion (probably later in the week, or next week). InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Possible leftover after redirecting draft to mainspace
Hello @Steel1943! A few days ago you redirected the draft of Return to Monkey Island to the mainspace. (thanks!)

I'm no expert about redirects but I wanted to inform you that there is a page associated to the article that still exists and that has no incoming links: Talk:Return_to_Monkey_Island_(video_game). I'm not sure if the absence of a redirect is intentional.

Cheers! ► LowLevel73 (talk) 06:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Long story short, the page Talk:Return to Monkey Island (video game) is allowed to exist as is, and there is no WP:CSD that exists to delete it. If you really want to, you could redirect Talk:Return to Monkey Island (video game) to Talk:Return to Monkey Island, but it's not a necessity. Steel1943  (talk) 07:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. Just to understand the process better: would a G8 "Talk pages with no corresponding subject page" apply to this case? ► LowLevel73 (talk) 07:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Since Return to Monkey Island (video game) exists, WP:G8 does not apply to Talk:Return to Monkey Island (video game). Steel1943  (talk) 12:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Golden Bay / Mohua
Hi Steel1943,

I would ask that you revert my revert of you opening a discussion in my name; as I specified in the request, I did not want a discussion to be opened with that text if the technical request was rejected, and to do so despite that is, I believe, a violation of WP:TPO.

For a broader discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Requested moves. BilledMammal (talk) 02:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * By the time I had posted the discussion, there was an editor who specifically posted "oppose" in the WP:RMTR discussion, so blanking their comment would have been a WP:TPO violation. If you had desired the discussion not to have dragged on as long as it did, you should have blanked the discussion prior to an editor specifically opposing the move. So, at this point, no matter which action I would have taken, there would have been a WP:TPO violation (either yours or theirs), so I was dammed if I didn't post the discussion and damned if I did post the discussion. Best option now would be for you to withdraw the discussion by closing it, or if you prefer, I can do that. Thanks. Steel1943  (talk) 02:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is accurate; it is not a WP:TPO violation to close a technical request without action even when the technical request has been opposed, as it doesn't alter the meaning of the editor who opposed the technical requests comment.
 * However, what does change the meaning of an editors text is suggesting that they opened a requested move with a specific text, when they explicitly said that they did not want it opened with that text. BilledMammal (talk) 02:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue with what you are stating is that it results in no record of the editor who opposed the move since their comment is not transferred over to any page where it can be displayed as a record. All editors need to have their voices respected in regards to consensus-forming, which is sort of one of the values of Wikipedia ... which goes back to me basically stating that me taking either action (posting the discussion or not) would have screwed me over. So, with that being said, this plus my previous comment stands, and I really don't I have anything else to say or add. Steel1943  (talk) 02:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That isn't an exception to WP:TPO, though. I also don't believe it makes sense as an exception; if you were concerned about editors having their opinion omitted in a future discussion there are several ways that you could have addressed that concern without needing to change the meaning of my comment - and I would note that there was no chance that Turnagra would have missed that move request when I eventually opened it. BilledMammal (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * WTFE, and take your pride off my talk page. Thanks. Steel1943  (talk) 03:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sim City (disambiguation)


A tag has been placed on Sim City (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either
 * disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
 * disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
 * is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of SimCity (disambiguation)


A tag has been placed on SimCity (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either
 * disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
 * disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
 * is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Rfd Time
I will not set a specific time for Redirects for discussion anymore. Sorry Steel1943. Bye for now. Bassie f (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd just recommend reading the top section of WP:RFD and the section at WP:RGUIDE for instructions about how to present nominations and how the timeline for RFD works to better understand how or when to use RFD. Also, you may consider reading other nominations by other editors to see how they are structuring their nominations for some examples. (I know this message is validly responding to me, but regarding "Steel58" ... did you confuse my name with Shirt58? I did see your name mentioned on their talk page a time or two, so I'm assuming you did.) Steel1943  (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I got confused with Shirt58 so fixing my mistake now. Bassie f (talk) 00:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Chocolate cream pie
I'm not altogether sure that's the right target. Chocolate cream pie is completely different from Boston Cream Pie these days - see https://www.google.com/search?q=chocolate+cream+pie&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiP9ZLq9MT6AhWaFFkFHXoRA6gQ_AUoAXoECAIQAw&biw=1920&bih=977&dpr=1 for a fair number of pictures. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In all honesty, I really don't care what happens to Chocolate cream pie other than it no longer targeting Cream pie (disambiguation), considering of the options listed there, only Boston cream pie has the phrase "chocolate cream pie" mentioned in it. Feel free to change or nominate the redirect in any way you see fit (but I may be against deletion if there is no evidence that Boston crime pie has never been called "chocolate cream pie" since that means the phrase refers to at least one existing subject/article on Wikipedia, even if it's an antiquated name.) Steel1943  (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

CSD update
I've requested for a formal close at WP:CR. If it passes, great, we'll start figuring out the exact wording of the criterion. If it doesn't pass, I'll start a follow-up discussion at WT:FILM to see if we can add something to their guidelines which we can then reference in future discussions. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Weight-lifting (disambiguation)


A tag has been placed on Weight-lifting (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either
 * disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
 * disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
 * is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:G14 is invalid as long as Weightlifting (disambiguation) exists. It would be a WP:G8 if Weightlifting (disambiguation) is deleted. I'm requesting my edits be restored pending whatever happens to Weightlifting (disambiguation) (which I honestly think should just be converted to a redirect towards Weightlifting since the aforementioned article is a WP:BROADCONCEPT, which I guess performs a "disambiguation-like function".) Steel1943  (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Added "I guess" to the above statement to clarify my stance. Steel1943  (talk) 16:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't check for that page; I agree that Weightlifting (disambiguation) is an acceptable target and I shouldn't have deleted. I don't fully agree that the Weightlifting page performs a "disambiguation-like" function but further deletions should probably go through RFD. —Kusma (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I intend to wait for Weightlifting (disambiguation) to unfold before doing anything else. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "I don't fully agree that the Weightlifting page performs a "disambiguation-like" function...": Me neither, and I'm the one who said it. However, per my experiences at WP:RFD, it's a stance that apparently isn't popular, so I just go with precedence, even if I don't agree with it. Long story short, I was considering just redirecting Weightlifting (disambiguation) to Weightlifting, but I think I'll let someone else respond to the WP:PROD tag currently on Weightlifting (disambiguation). Steel1943  (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And to explain, further, sorry: Weightlifting (disambiguation) was a redirect to Weightlifting at the time of this nomination but I decided subsequently to revert that redirect and PROD it instead; it seemed a little disingenuous to G14 Weightlifting (disambiguation) when it hadn't been a redirect for very long. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's what I figured happened after I was told Weight-lifting (disambiguation) was a redirect towards Weightlifting when it was deleted. I thought I had redirected Weight-lifting (disambiguation) to Weightlifting (disambiguation) after I moved Weightlifting to Weightlifting (disambiguation), but apparently I didn't. Steel1943  (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society
Dear ,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. &#x200B;

Best regards, Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 11:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Born Demon
Done! Articles for deletion/Born Demon‎‎ - UtherSRG (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Up (2009 film
You seem to be supporting deleting redirects like this.

I could fix the problem by editing the Teahouse archive, even though this is discouraged. I do it all the time when there is a link which is outdated fur to the question being archived.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  20:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I usually don't fix links to deleted redirects in any spaces other than the article space since other spaces may utilize them for historical reasons, but if you believe there is a need, by all means. Steel1943  (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and fixed the link in the Teahouse.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  18:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Spoiler Alert: The Hero Dies for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Spoiler Alert: The Hero Dies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spoiler Alert: The Hero Dies until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Babar Suhail (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy Holidays
Merry Christmas, Steel1943! Have a prosperous new year! InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:08, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

RFDNote
Hi Steel1943. Early this month you placed an RFDNote about "Czech —" on my talk page. May I ask why? I don't think I ever had anything to do with that redirect; and its deletion was a very simple case, which, as far as I can see, didn't require my input. ◅ Sebastian 10:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It was an automated notification placed by Twinkle, which means the redirect listed you as its creator. Either way, at this point, I cannot confirm the redirect's edit history since it has since been deleted and I'm not an administrator. Steel1943  (talk) 14:34, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your quick answer. I am an administrator, and I did check before asking you, but strangely I didn't see my own name in the history. Now that I rechecked I see that it was originally by me, after all. (OK, I'm calling the ophthalmologist now!) But then (in 2003) I created it as “Czecholslovakia” (with a typo: either that was a mistake, too, or maybe then I thought it was a good idea to redirect such unlikely typos) and in 2009 it was moved to “Czech —” by a user who did the same with two other misspellings which eventually were covered in the same RfD. Anyway, all is well now. ◅ Sebastian 15:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)