User talk:Steel1943

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Precious anniversary[edit]

Precious
Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for editing the OP Article!![edit]

The Anime Barnstar
Enjoy this special ANIME Barnstar! Babysharkboss2 was here!! 17:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to Cornell study on Wikipedia discussions[edit]

Hello Steel1943,

I’m reaching out as part of a Cornell University academic study investigating the potential for user-facing tools to help improve discussion quality within Wikipedia discussion spaces (such as talk pages, noticeboards, etc.). We chose to reach out to you because you have been highly active on various discussion pages.

The study centers around a prototype tool, ConvoWizard, which is designed to warn Wikipedia editors when a discussion they are replying to is getting tense and at risk of derailing into personal attacks or incivility. More information about ConvoWizard and the study can be found at our research project page on meta-wiki.

If this sounds like it might be interesting to you, you can use this link to sign up and install ConvoWizard. Of course, if you are not interested, feel free to ignore this message.

If you have any questions or thoughts about the study, our team is happy to discuss! You may direct such comments to me or to my collaborator, Cristian_at_CornellNLP.

Thank you for your consideration.

--- Jonathan at CornellNLP (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please move "Ballad for Americans (album)" back to "Ballad for Americans (Bing Crosby album)"? You thought that was "unnecessary disambiguation". But it was Paul Robeson who originally released the cantata as an album (a two-record set) and I think his version is more famous. (There's no article about that original album yet.) And redirect "Ballad for Americans (album)" to simply "Ballad for Americans". --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:06, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Moscow Connection: I made that move 7 years ago, so no. You will need to use the WP:RM process. Also, see WP:ALBUMDAB. Steel1943 (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's just that I thought you were an admin. (I see now, I'll just have to create an article about the Paul Robeson album.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFD work[edit]

Washing dirty redirects
Thanks for wringing out every WP:RDAB violation from the filthy, forgotten corners of the 2005-era Wikipedia. (Roundish t) 00:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Berry picking[edit]

The redirect Berry picking has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 28 § Berry picking until a consensus is reached. Indefatigable (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Monotypic taxa[edit]

Just to note that as per the two pages linked from Wikipedia:MONOTYPICTAXA, articles about a species which is the only one in its genus, as is the case with × Tripleurocota sulfurea, are at the genus (unless this needs to be disambiguated). Peter coxhead (talk) 10:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: Could you please provide to me linked names of the article(s) I moved which contradicted these guidelines? (Unfortunately, I've done more edits lately than I usually do in such a period of time, so I recall what you are referring, but not specifically.) Either way, IMO, it's a bit odd that an article is titled with its parent subject rather than itself per WP:CONCISE, so ... any chance you may know the discussion(s) which resulted in a guideline that possibly goes against WP:CONCISE? (I mean, I'm no stranger to titling and disambiguation guidelines that go against WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE, considering WP:ALBUMDAB and WP:SONGDAB, so I know it happens ... I'm just curious how it happened.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter coxhead: Never mind about the list of articles as I see you have reverted my move(s). However, just curious: Do you know of any location where there might have been discussion that led to the consensus I referenced above? Steel1943 (talk) 06:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a very long-standing convention across the tree of life wikiprojects, and seems to have been in place before the naming conventions guidance was split between fauna and flora, so I'm not sure where it was originally discussed; I would assume there's material in the archives of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life. I've never known any other convention since I started editing seriously around 2010.
You wrote "it's a bit odd that an article is titled with its parent subject rather than itself", but this isn't the case. If a genus has only one species, then if there is an article on the genus and an article on the species there's really nothing different to say in each one. Having one article with a redirect avoids duplication of content and consequent redundancy. For a monospecific genus, the genus name and the species name refer to exactly the same set of organisms, so there's no problem with WP:PRECISE. As for WP:CONCISE, the genus name is more concise than the species name, so once it's decided to have only one article, it seems to me that the genus name is the more obvious choice. But it is to some degree arbitrary which name is chosen, and other language wikis have made different choices.
Peter coxhead (talk) 07:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter coxhead: Regarding "If a genus has only one species, then if there is an article on the genus and an article on the species there's really nothing different to say in each one.: What I mean by that is ... at some point during some edits I have recently been performing, I found an article titled the genus but the article in its entirety described the species, which I found odd. I mean, in that case, I would believe the genus subject would have WP:REDLINK potential since it is/was not identified anywhere other than a brief mention on an article with the genus as a title, but the article is only about its only species. Meh, this policy of ours can potential cause article connection issues on Wikidata since it could lead to Wikidata claiming an article about the genus on one Wikipedia discusses the same subject of another article on another Wikipedia, but that article is about the species. (I know the English Wikipedia tends to give local policy over fixing Wikidata issues, and I could have sworn that was written somewhere in the project space, so it is what it is.) Long story short, I've been editing regularly since about 2012, and ... this is the first time I can recall running into needing to know this article titling policy at any point during my time here ... which is a bit of a surprise for me since a good portion of the edits I do on here tend to be regarding titling articles per WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE in terms of disambiguation (besides my regular WP:RFD participation ... and whatever other redundant fixes I find that several articles tend to need.) Anyways, that's all I got for now, so ... as they say: Cheers! Steel1943 (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's some discussion of the Wikidata issue at User:Peter coxhead/Wikidata issues#Monotypic taxa. As noted there, it's worse than genus/species issues for more complex monotypic taxa, because, for example, the general policy on the Spanish wikipedia is one article at the highest level, on the Italian wikipedia one article at the lowest level, and on the French wikipedia one article at each level except the genus. I regard the problem as being with Wikidata: it is supposed to model the external world as it is. The policy of only allowing 1:1 links manifestly fails to represent reality. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...I've been dealing with that Wikidata redirect linking issue for over 10 years, around the time Wikidata first went live. Now, yeah, Wikidata allows linking redirects, but only if the title is not a redirect when it is linked in Wikidata. I don't have the resources to figure out where on Wikidata this may be stated, but linking redirects directly through Wikidata links to the redirect's target instead. Annoying, but ... after discovering the initial failure to allow linking redirects over a decade ago, the fact that a workaround in Wikidata still needs to occur to link a redirect is frustrating. But, eh ... it is what it is. Steel1943 (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you can link directly to a title that is a redirect. When you add the link, a little icon comes up next to the title you're adding (when you hover, the text "Click to assign a badge" appears – "badge" is very odd here to me). Clicking on the icon you can choose "intentional sitelink to redirect". I'm not sure how long this has been allowed – I found it by accident. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joyous Season[edit]

Cremastra (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Minor barnstar
Replying to all your RfDs (that all had the same problem) made me lose a million brain cells. Anyway, how do you even log that many redirects in a day? The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 22:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@The Corvette ZR1: I used to do bundled nominations, and people complained. I then split them up, and then people complain. Since there is really no third option, guess people will just complain. 😂 Steel1943 (talk) 23:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It turns out, complaining is as addictive as beer. Also, you should tell them that complaining is literally killing them. Sadly, I'm pretty sure these don't meet RS, so... umm... uhh... idk, my brain is dead lol. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 23:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons Greetings[edit]

Merry Christmas, Steel1943!
Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 TT me 15:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
[reply]

Onel5969 TT me 15:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas![edit]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!
WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024.
Happy editing,

InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:12, 25 December

InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:12, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects that don't have a space before the disambiguation searchable[edit]

Hey, not sure if you know this, but I've found intitle:/a\(/ (example; replace the letter to find more) which is useful to find redirects that don't have a space before the disambiguation. Gonnym (talk) 11:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: Look at the hidden text at the bottom of my user page... Been tweaking regexes for a bit to avoid false positives. 😉 Steel1943 (talk) 13:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hidden text! Gonnym (talk) 13:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: Eh, my regex setups would not have found Tropical Storm Verna(1945) since my regexes are set up to ignore malformed "disambiguators" with the first character being a number, due to the high potential to return false positive results for valid chemistry-related redirects that have parentheses, dashes, and numbers at almost random locations. Steel1943 (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: Just created a regex for years. The search contained a very small amount of false positives (and may return different results every time it is used since the complicated regex makes the search function time out), but most seem like valid WP:RDAB issues. Steel1943 (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Brother's Keeper (2021 film)[edit]

Hello, Steel1943,

Thank you for creating Brother's Keeper (2021 film).

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Hi Steel1943. The article as it stands is borderline for meeting WP:NFILM and would really need to be expanded with additional WP:RS sources to demonstrate notability. It would benefit from an explanation of the plot, and the addition of a 'Reception' section. It would also benefit from addition to relevant Wikiprojects.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bastun}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bastun: This is a automated tool notification failure since I created the title as a redirect and I did not create any of the content on the page: The editor who did that was Inwind. Steel1943 (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I do not use the Page Curation tool, but if the tool allows custom notifications and you wrote that notification, you may want to look at the page's edit history next time to ensure the correct editor is named and the notification goes to them instead. Thanks. Steel1943 (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, yes, the tool identifies the 'page creator', I should have checked. My bad! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect disambiguation errors[edit]

Hey Steel! Thank you for your nominations at RfD by the way. I've been curious for a while if you've been working off of a list (from Quarry or somewhere else) in order to identify the redirects that make errors in disambiguation. I've ran a few tests of my own and found a slew of pages with disambiguation errors, although I haven't really bitten deeper into that chunk for a few reasons, mainly because my focus has been elsewhere and I wanted to confer alongside your efforts. I guess the main thing I'm wondering is if you've been working off a list, and/or how far through are you those nominations, and/or what criteria have you been using to make the list? Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 02:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait... I can't believe I didn't see the other section two above this that I should've tacked onto, LOL. That does answer some of my questions, I haven't checked the regex yet. A lot of what I was looking into was missing or extra parentheses and how often those come up (there's a few hundred or so) but I wanted to see how likely it was that we'd be running into the same problematic redirects. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I was investigating this around when I sent this message, but I thought you might want to take a look at this massviews of Foo(bar) redirects: [1]. The query it's based on, ([2]) isn't a perfect catch-all by any means, as there's plenty of chemistry redirects which validly lack a space, and show up in this report because of it. But by looking at the viewcounts, most of the chemicals float to the top of the list view-wise (not all though). I saw looked into the regex you used in your searches, which is what I adapted for this query, but instead was looking at lowercase letters instead of numbers in the disambiguators. Utopes (talk / cont) 18:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Utopes: I'll take a look at that Quarry inquiry ... beats having to reload my regex every time the search times out. (I used Quarry like once in the past, but couldn't really figure it out ... but since my real life time to dedicate to Wikipedia has been rather sporadic lately, the list of entries I get prior to the query timing out on search is usually all I have time for whenever I run the regex search.) Steel1943 (talk) 06:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good if you do; for disclosure, I might also start chipping away at some of the redirects listed there in a little while. Although, I'm (quite surprisingly) trying to space out my nominations so I'm not just going all in for a singular category at RfD. As an example, I don't think I'm going to do any more RDAB nominations for a while as I'm waiting for my current few to simmer and conclude, and am instead putting my attention on the backend of the NPP queue instead. A strategy I've been thinking about is to bundle all of the redirects that are exactly of the form Foo(song), of which there's 129 (per [3], but who said it was going to be easy 😅). Similarly there's 172 that are exactly like Foo(film), another common occurrence. We'll see how the next few weeks play out. Hope real life is going well though! Feel free to take it easy, there's no deadline by any means ^^ 😌 Utopes (talk / cont) 06:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notice

The article E129 (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Invalid and unnecessary disambiguation page containing the primary topic and only one other topic.

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the script not working for "List of atheists, agnostics and other nontheists "[edit]

Searching it on wikipedia counts it as an article and not a redirect due to its status as rfD. -1ctinus📝🗨 11:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @1ctinus: I know, thus why I was stating you need to check your edits and/or scripts since all edits, correct or erroneous, are the responsibility of the editor who made them. (Odd that I couldn't find a shortcut to a policy explaining that, but it's true.) Steel1943 (talk) 14:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Template:R from subtitle has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 4 § Template:R from subtitle until a consensus is reached. ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 09:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adult fiction[edit]

Re your revert, Steel1943. A merge had been completed by me sometime ago. An article on Adult fiction would duplicate most of the already existing [[Fiction]] article. I have now added a sentence to the lede of that article, and am considering whether more is needed. I probably should have done this at the time of the merging! Sorry. Rwood128 (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rwood128: Not sure if you saw that I reverted my revert. Long story short, your subsequent edits to Fiction resolved the concerns I had with Adult fiction going back to being a redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Rwood128 (talk) 10:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar time![edit]

The Helping Hand Barnstar
Seriously, I know you're not my official mentor or anything but with how much you've helped me out... Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 02:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Steel1943, I'm not sure of the etiquette here but I saw the closed RfD for Candidates for the first novel and I thought List of claimed first novels in English was almost certainly the information someone would be looking for with that query (as opposed to Novel#Early novels). I changed the redirect myself, which I think is a find "bold" edit but I wanted to let you know in case you disagreed or in case there is a process I should follow in the context of RfD which I am not aware. Thanks for your cleanup work! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LEvalyn: Only thing I really have to do to avoid huge amounts of controversy is ask the other participant in that discussion ... @Johnbod: Do you have a problem with the change? Steel1943 (talk) 23:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's much better. I'd never seen that. Hang on - that only covers novels in English, whereas the other went to ancient & later novels. So I still prefer Novel#Early novels. Johnbod (talk) 04:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LEvalyn and Johnbod: Due to the above potential disagreement and since the redirect has been edited and reverted since my close, I have reopened the discussion and relisted it at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 9#Candidates for the first novel. Steel1943 (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for relisting, Steel1943, that was the right call -- I had assumed the original choice was made without an awareness of Candidates for the first novel as an option but it looks like consensus is still clearly to stick with Novel#Early novels. It was good to have more discussion. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]