Hi. Are you active with WP:WikiProject Music and WP:Biography?? If so, perhaps you could help me. I am trying to set up a shared community resource where various WikiProjects could exchange information with each other regarding various active projects, efforts and ideas that they are working on. would you be interested in helping me to develop this? I could really use some input and ideas; if the community uses this, it will take off; otherwise, it will not. I would welcome any ideas that you may have. this is currently an active discussion at Village Pump on the "Proposals" tab, but you are welcome to reply to me here. Please ping me if you respond. I appreciate your help. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sm8900: I'm very sorry but, no, I'm not currently active in any WikiProjects and haven't been for some years. I'm tempted to say "I'll take part anyway" but for personal reasons I think it's best if I decline. Wikipedia can very easily become a full time occupation and I fear that if I get involved in too many areas I will neglect real-life duties and obligations. Again, sorry I can't be of assistance on this occasion. --kingboyk (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
okay, no problem, at all. however, off the top of your head, might you be able to please name just two or three editors who might be currently active at either one of those or both? hoping to see who might have some interest. I appreciate it. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sm8900: Sadly most of the editors I used to work with have left Wikipedia or I've lost contact with them. One person I can heartily recommend, if she is still interested in WikiProjects, is Plange. She did a lot of the groundwork getting WPBiography up and running in the early days and I see she has edited this year (but not this month).
I am aware of several editors who are active within WP:MOTORSPORT if that project is of interest to you? (A7V2; SSSB (not listed as a member but recently responded to an enquiry of mine of the project talkpage and assessed a motorsport article I wrote); Philby NZ) --kingboyk (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you lock and remove the POV tag on Ian Smith's Page ?
Ian Smith's page was not subject to an edit-war at the time when you locked the page, and the dispute regarding the articles neutrality was far from being settled ? Zubin12 (talk) 09:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I rolled back to the last protected version, and restored the protection, so that the dispute can continue to be settled on the talk page. --kingboyk (talk) 14:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add: Once the dispute is settled, if the discussion is not closed by an admin and the page remains protected, please request unprotection at WP:RFPP. --kingboyk (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A page you deleted
Hi, not sure if you've seen Talk:Sean John McCann, an IP is asking why the page was deleted. I'm not sure what the drill is on using talk pages of deleted pages. DuncanHill (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DuncanHill, I can try and help. kingboyk was just mopping up an expired PROD of Sean John McCann, which looked like the PRODding editor claimed it failed our notability guidelines. I believe expired PRODs may be subject to undeletion at WP:REFUND and, presumably, it would then go to AfD, assuming the PRODder is still watching the page. Still, the IP editor shouldn't have recreated the article's talk page because now it's a talk page without a corresponding article page and eligible for WP:CSD#G8. Hope that helps. (talk page stalker)Doug MehusT·C 22:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus:, sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I know perfectly well why the page was deleted, it was on my watchlist, I saw it prodded, and deleted, and have read the deletion log. It is because it is on my watchlist that I saw the talk page had been recreated. What I am unclear about is how to respond to the IP recreating the talk page. The IP needs an answer, but the talk page, on which an answer would be expected, needs to be deleted. DuncanHill (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DuncanHill, Ah, no worries. Yes, I'm uncertain if we should tag the talk page as G8. Presumably, if the IP editor wishes to have it restored, they can do so by WP:REFUND. I suspect, the administrators would have the capability to restore all of the previous talk page's revisions except for the recreated talk page? Doug MehusT·C 22:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Should we try responding to the IP editor on their talk page? Hopefully their IP address hasn't changed, and they know where to find the reply. Presumably, one of us should just make the WP:REFUND request after the talk page is deleted, and then we can notify the restored talk page, so the IP editor knows what happened? Doug MehusT·C 22:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DuncanHill and Dmehus: Thank you Duncan for the message, and Doug for stepping in to answer while I was away. Just to confirm 1) Yes (for future reference, as it has already been deleted by another admin), you can tag a stray/recreated talk page for deletion under G8 2) Yes, PRODded pages can be restored at WP:REFUND, and 3) Yes, if circumstances warrant it we can most certainly selectively restore revisions of a deleted page.
With regards to how to respond to the IP editor who recreated the talk page to ask why the article was deleted, you could indeed leave them a short message pointing to the deletion log and WP:REFUND, but who knows if they'll see it? You could request a refund yourself. I've looked again at the article and think it unlikely it would survive at AfD, otherwise I would have restored it myself right now. (I'm happy to do so if either you request it, but you'll likely get a quicker response at WP:REFUND if you want to take that route). --kingboyk (talk) 14:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply, and for taking another look at the article. I won't submit a WP:REFUND request. Perhaps one route to go, when tagging the stray talk page as G8 is to tag with multiple criteria and insert a custom note that links to WP:REFUND should the IP editor return to the talk page they created? This would at least point them in the correct direction. Doug MehusT·C 14:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus: A deleting admin can always leave a custom note in the deletion log alongside the canned reason for deletion but, again, I would have to cast some doubt on whether it would be seen.
I'm sure if the IP is sufficiently concerned they'll be able to find the Help Desk or Teahouse :) --kingboyk (talk) 14:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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. Gonnym (talk) 08:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about an outcome the template doesn't consider? I've speedy deleted the category myself :) --kingboyk (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 18 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 19 February. It will be on all wikis from 20 February (calendar).
Comment I concur with Utopes and second the awarding of the good humour barnstar. ;-) Doug MehusT·C 02:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I shall proudly display said barnstar on my user page :) --kingboyk (talk) 12:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment re items
Hi. I don't know if you knew this, but your help with deletions in my user space is highly appreciated. I was asked to remove some user pages, and was seeking to do so as expeditiously as possible. your actions were very helpful. I have also enjoyed hearing your insights on various talk pages recently. I really appreciate your help. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sm8900: You're welcome. As you probably saw, I had to decline deletion of User:Sm8900/Infobox SFU nation as I don't believe it is eligible for speedy deletion as you were not the main author and it was moved into your userspace from elsewhere.
User:Sm8900/item draft 2 you tagged but then blanked. I assume you want to keep that. If you don't want to keep it, retag it for speedy deletion. We are not allowed to assume that blanking is a deletion request when it is in userspace. --kingboyk (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
that sounds fine. thanks, that's very perceptive of you. I will keep item draft 2, since it has some comments from other users.
re the SFU info box, I found another reason for speedy deletion. this is an infobox for several articles on a fictitious universe from Star Trek., since the infobox no longer exists, I assume no one links to it. i appreciate your help. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect options
Hi Kingboyk - thanks, I do see my prod here was a misplaced RfD. The redirect was still misleading but the easier answer is to let the page exist and change the target, which I have now done. -- Ham105 (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ham105: In retrospect, I could have ignored the PROD problem and speedy deleted it instead. I've now done that as you were right, it doesn't appear to be a useful redirect, and it has no incoming links. --kingboyk (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm still learning wiki procedures despite having edited for several years. Is there any chance of the World Rugby Sevens Challenger Series – Women's tour (and corresponding men's) article names being retained? These were modelled on the Olympic Sevens, e.g. Rugby sevens at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Women's tournament, which doesn't use a bracketed addendum as often used for women's sports articles (the women's tour for the Challenger Series is actually only one tournament at present, although may be expanded in future to a tour with a series of events like the ATP tour). -- Ham105 (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Natural disambiguation: Using an alternative name e.g. 'World Rugby Sevens Challenger Series Women's Tour'
or if not possible by
Parenthetical disambiguation e.g. 'World Rugby Sevens Challenger Series (women)' or 'World Rugby Sevens Challenger Series (women's tour)'. Additionally, WP:CONCISE says "to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area" which I felt that "(men)" and "(women)" did.
There's nothing (that I can see) in that policy which supports using dashes or hyphens (arguably, therefore, Rugby sevens at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Women's tournament is also misnamed). If there has to be a hyphen it should imho be a 'normal' hyphen (-) not the – which was used before.
I'm afraid I know next to nothing about rugby so I can't advise you on natural disambiguation. Are there any official alternative titles which disambiguate the mens' event from the womens' event?
Probably the best thing for you to do, if you don't have any "natural disambiguation" options, is ask for help at a relevant WikiProject or at the Help Desk, about what the naming convention should be and then make it consistent across all affected articles. If you need any help moving articles, once it's clear what the names should be, I'm happy to help. --kingboyk (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The thing about rugby is that they have specifically rebranded all World Rugby tournaments to remove gender references from their event titles to try to aim for gender equality.
This is why only one main article was created for this new series to encompass both men and women.
While not endorsed under Disambiguation in article titles, the en dash (as used in hundreds if not thousands of those Olympic page names) is used for sentence punctuation in Wikipedia – see MOS:DASH.
It is the "least worst" way of writing the series name for these seasons (in my view) given the branding mentioned at the top of this post. That's because it allows a wide and clear separation between the name of the series (which has been made specifically non-gendered), and the gendered modifier.
The bracketed (women) thing was what women's rugby was trying to avoid. But it seems it will have to remain for now, unless revisited (by myself or others) at a later date to be taken through the enclylopedic bureaucracy.
I do regret my typo of omitting the four characters "2020" a week ago and then trying to fix it because it has only led to a can of worms. :) Anyway, thanks for the feedback. -- Ham105 (talk) 23:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ham105: Can of worms indeed, not helped by an excess of policies and guidelines, many of them contradictory.
If you still want me to move the pages back to how you named them (assuming you are blocked from doing so yourself) just remind me of the current titles please and I'll do that. If the system lets you do it, just go ahead and revert me. --kingboyk (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, I have moved to the previous titles. I wasn't blocked but didn't want to revert your changes without some consensus at least being gained, given your good faith input plus edits and procedural knowledge in some areas I'm not expert in. Much appreciate your patience and help. -- Ham105 (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ham105: My pleasure. Thanks for the cordial exchange. --kingboyk (talk) 00:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If nothing else...
...my rejected redirect speedy deletions are bringing you out from behind the mop into the RfD and MfD deletion discussions. It's nice to see! I used to only see your name show up in the deletion log as one of the processors of speedy deletion taggings. That, and it's exercising your pun muscles. ;-)
Would you like to do another WP:SNOWdelete closure? The RfD is at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 18#Adam Griffith (American football) (disambiguation), which I originally tagged as G14 even if, according to the letter of the policy, it may not, technically qualify. An editor had objected to my tagging, even though they ultimately !voted to "delete" the redirect, chiefly because of the rationale. Had I probably tagged it as G6, it probably wouldn't have been objected to. Nevertheless, based on the participation in the RfD thus far, it's clear that deletion is a foregone conclusion and, thus, can be deleted early per WP:SNOW, I believe.
@Dmehus: Sorry for the delay in replying. It's been an unusual 24 hours. Last night I had a power cut and had to stop editing. This morning as I was reading the BBC News, I came across a report on the death of a person whose name I recognised, Simon Warr. Turns out the reason I recognised the name was that I'd refunded a draft about him just the day before. It seemed only right and proper to complete the draft and get it into mainspace, which took up most of my day :(
I'm going to decline to intervene on the RfD above. It doesn't appear to be a matter of any urgency nor is the redirect harmful. --kingboyk (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kingboyk, Thanks for the reply! Interesting, I noticed you undeleted that draft actually and saw you WikiGnoming a bit on it. That's unfortunate to the broadcaster's passing. No worries on the deletion. It can slow walk to its predetermined outcome. ;-) Doug MehusT·C 21:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus: I have no personal affinity there, I just felt the draft ought to be completed before somebody else plonked an inferior version into mainspace. That said, cancer is of course a terrible thing.
On the subject of recent deaths, what are the odds that two people nicknamed "Mad Mike" would die in the same month?! (Mad Mike Hoare, Mad Mike Hughes) --kingboyk (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page templates
@Dmehus:Off topic for this section, but since you're 'here: There's a {{olddelrev}} template? I couldn't find such a template when I dealt with Draft talk:ShifCustom (and I did look). Thanks for adding it.
Could I please suggest, though, that you don't be that guy who adds {{talkheader}} to deserted talk pages? [Heck, I'm just going to suggest it anyway; feel free to ignore :)]
That template drives me nuts. ~99.9% of the time the template is used it's just clutter as there are and never will be any problems on the talk page. I'd wager (a very small amount ;)) that most talk pages don't even have any actual talk on them, just WikiProject templates. If Wikipedia intended for the wording of that template to be on every talk page, they'd make it happen programatically! Down with this sort of thing! /soapbox. --kingboyk (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kingboyk, I agree. I'll remove it. You're right; I've actually stopped adding it to most pages, though I do like {{talk page of redirect}} and {{talk page of disambiguation page}}. I actually wouldn't mind if that template was made more concise, like stating, "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the NAME OF PAGE page[,]" and maybe having links to where to ask for help and not to forget to sign one's posts, but the constant reminders (i.e., the four bullet points to the right) are overkill for sure. What do you think of the talk of redirect and talk page of disambiguation page headers, though? Doug MehusT·C 21:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus: I'm not overly familiar with those two. {{Talk page of redirect}} I wouldn't use; if there's a talk page I'd redirect that too, otherwise I'd leave it red. {{Talk page of disambiguation page}} looks like it might be useful (without knowing whether it's true that dab pages are not frequently watched; I suspect it probably is). --kingboyk (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding {{olddelrev}}, yeah, I had to look hard to find it; I think I just tried random search strings based on "old xfd" and "old xfd multi" and got lucky? I don't know why we don't have XFDCloser close deletion reviews and add that tag. I should ping Evad37 into this discussion. Evad37, would it be necessarily difficult to have XFDCloser be able to close deletion review discussions and, where the result is anything other than "endorse" the deleted page, to adding {{olddelrev}} to the talk page? Doug MehusT·C 21:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus: Possibly, but it wouldn't quite as easy as that... DRV can also be used when the original discussion was closed as keep, in which case an overturn result would mean the talk page gets deleted, not tagged. There's also the complication that the nominated pages and their talk pages may or may not have been temporarily undeleted. - Evad37[talk] 08:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Evad37: The first objection doesn't appear on the face of it to be a terrible complication - you'd just tag the talk page prior to deleting it, or (if one assumes that a page deleted at DRV is probably not going to be refunded), just take no further action in this case. Just my 2 cents, I have not formed any opinion on the proposal and was merely congratulating Doug for finding a template that had eluded me :). --kingboyk (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
