User talk:Tavix

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Natalya Anisimova[edit]

Hi,

I don't understand why you cancelled my edits about Natalya Anisimova. I have so far almost 20000 edits so I know that WP:CUTPASTE is not how a page should be moved. Nowadays, considering that:

  • two eligible people are named Natalya Anisimova :one handballer but also an athlete who won a silver medal in a top level international competition;
  • there's currently a problem with wikidata links: Natalya Anisimova is a disambiguation page with a link to in the disambiguation page wiki.de while Natalya Anisimova (handballer), which is just a redirection to Natalya Anisimova in wiki.en, is about the handball player with links to the same player in portuguese, russian and swedish. Consequently, when you're in the english article, you just can go to the german disambiguation article but not to the article about the player in other languages...;

I think that two articles should exist: the disambiguation article and the one about the handballer.

And by the way, you also cancelled the improvement I made about the article: I updated the medal table (she's world champion in 82, don't you think it should be mentionned) and her maiden name.

So, ok, I admit that the way I did those edits isn't the best one, but IMHO it led to the right result! I hope you'll change you mind.

NB: sorry for the mistakes, english is not my mother tongue. --LeFnake (talk) 10:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Currently on the English Wikipedia, there is just one Natalya Anisimova, the handballer. If an article is written on the athlete, then disambiguation will be necessary. If you'd like to write the article on the athlete, I'd be more than willing to (re)create the disambiguation and make the necessary move for you. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
    •  Done, I wrote the article on the athlete :-) --LeFnake (talk) 11:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Thanks for your work! I went ahead and made the moves and re-created the disambiguation page. -- Tavix (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Freundeskreis Reichführer SS[edit]

Hi, I just saw that you deleted a page Freundeskreis Reichführer SS because it was created by a blocked user. If there are no other reason than that, I'd like to create a redirect Freundeskreis Reichführer SS-->Freundeskreis der Wirtschaft (alternate name, cf. lead). Would that be ok? Best regards - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The same applies to Freundeskreis Himmler, another alternate name for Freundeskreis der Wirtschaft, and another page deleted due to blocking violation. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jochen Burghardt: Yes, that would be okay. Any pages deleted via G5 may be recreated by anyone in good standing (ie: not a sockpuppet). So if you see any others, feel free to (re)create them. Happy editing, -- Tavix (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done - Thanks for your rapid response. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 07:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Shithole[edit]

You fully protected this. I could see a dab/"see also" page at that location, pointing to "Shithole countries" (of Trump fame), together with "not to be confused" links to Shitole and Sithole. What do you think? Sandstein 15:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

  • @Sandstein: Thanks for reminding me, I had forgotten about that. I could get behind something of that nature. However, due to the sensitive nature of the topic, perhaps it would be best to get further opinions at WP:RFD and see if it would gain consensus. -- Tavix (talk) 16:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Why RFD? It's not a redirect. Could you just unprotect it and see what the editorial process makes of it? Sandstein 16:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • It's a Redirect to Wiktionary, as evidenced by the category. See {{Wiktionary redirect}}. I proposed RfD because I don't feel comfortable unprotecting it. That would make the editorial process be a discussion on what to do with it at the proper venue, which would be RfD. -- Tavix (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Clarification on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 January 13 § 29 redirects fully enclosed in quotation marks[edit]

Hi Tavix. Thanks for the close. Quick question: What was your finding as to the eight redirects that you did not delete (and that hadn't been struck)? "Keep" or "no consensus"? Thanks. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 11:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I've clarified that they are "no consensus" and they may be renominated at any time. The edit summary on those redirects said "no consensus", but that's a bit opaque... -- Tavix (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Second AMP Building, Townsville[edit]

I am not sure I understand your reasoning for renaming the Second AMP Building, Townsville as Australian Mutual Provident Society Building. Australia is awash with current and former AMP buildings, many of the older ones being heritage listed. As the disambiguation page AMP Building shows, we already have several articles about such buildings on Wikipedia (and there are doubtless other ones which might have articles at some other time as they would pass notability due to heritage listings). So calling this particular former AMP building in Townsville by a "primary" name is pretty dubious, as it was definitely a branch office rather than a headquarters. So, we have been disambiguating them by place name until now (apart from former buildings which have since acquired a different common name). Since there are two heritage-listed AMP buildings in Townsville, we need to distinguish them which we do with ordinals (as such buildings are usually in a temporal sequence). I see from the edit summary that you were influenced by the first name in the Queensland Heritage Register but are you aware that names in the Queensland Heritage Register are not unique? They use registration number to identify the entries, not the names. This is why we don't automatically use them for Wikipedia article names (which must be unique). And, as the name suggests, the Qld Heritage Register only covers Qld. It is very likely that one or more of the AMP buildings in another state is also listed on their heritage register as "Australian Mutual Provident Society Building". Also anything with the words "Australian Mutual Provident" fails WP:COMMON. Australians all say "AMP"; indeed, I suspect many of my fellow citizens would struggle to tell you what AMP is short for. Kerry (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:AT: Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. The main source uses "Australian Mutual Provident Society Building", so that is the name that should be used to title the building. If there is another commonly referred-to name for the building, then we can consider that one. What sources do not use, however, is "Second AMP Building, Townsville". If you can provide evidence that another building is commonly referred to as "Australian Mutual Provident Society Building", then we can talk disambiguation. -- Tavix (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Live PD[edit]

Hey there. I know we had some quibbles in the past about this page, but I think I need your help with it now. There is a user, User:2601:84:1:116A:9939:356E:4700:ECE2 (their IP seems to vary slightly, however their behavior is constant, which leads me to beleive that it is all the same person), who is trying to better the page by making the list of departments and LEOs followed bigger. His intentions are good, but all he is really doing is messing up the list. I sent them a message on their talk page asking them to stop, for the reasons I stated above, however they did not reply, and continue to borderline vandalize the page.(I'll have to fix it again at some point). If you could help me deal with this, it'd be great, as we are two of the few who edit Live PD. I have reverted the edits and placed level 1 & 2 vandalism warnings on the user's talk page. Thanks, Fhsig13 (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Fhsig13: Yeah, I saw that and thanks for cleaning it up. I think that's all that needs to be done right now. If I catch them continuing in the future, I'll be sure to take care of it. Cheers, -- Tavix (talk) 22:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
@Tavix: He did it a third time just now. I've reverted it, and given him the level 3 vandalism warning. I'd suggest that if he does more than twice more, (there are 5 levels of warnings we have to go through before we can Request WP:AIV), we should request WP:AIV. Thoughts? Fhsig13 (talk) 02:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
@Tavix: I'm sure that the edits you reverted today on Live PD were done by the same fellow as yesterday. I'm going to give him the level 4 warning if you haven't already. Fhsig13 (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
@Tavix: He's at it again, under another different IP. I reverted it again, and gave him the 4im warning. I'll request WP:AIV if he does it again, regardless of IP. Fhsig13 (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Gaming the RFC by deleting options[edit]

Please restore W. Homer Axford, you deleted what was created as an option at an open RFC, we generally do not allow people to game the RFC by deleting options under active discussion there. It taints the discussion if people can not see what they are !voting on. --RAN (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

  • No, there was consensus to delete it. -- Tavix (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Offensive edit stands unnoticed[edit]

Hi, please take a look at this offensive edit, it was made few weeks ago and it seems that nobody noticed, but it should be removed at once. Sorabino (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

So undo it. I've done just that. -- Tavix (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
...and I've WP:REVDEL'd it. I had never done that before, so it took me a bit to figure it out. -- Tavix (talk) 15:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, such incidents are always best dealt by administrators. Sorabino (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
It's still better to undo it yourself, and then ask an administrator for the revdel. That would have been 15 minutes less that the offensive edit is in the article (and it could have been longer, I just happened to be logging in then). -- Tavix (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Redirect Discussion on February 3 2018- pages with no content redirect to List of current UFC fighters[edit]

Hi Tavix, I have reported a list of pages with no content that redirect to List of current UFC fighters on today (February 3, 2018) redirect discussion. I had read the how to guide and confused how it works so I consulted other editor did similar (a series of pages redirect to a single page) and got the instruction below. However, I found out something I must have done wrongly as it doesn't appear as it should. see here [1]. Please help and thanks in advance.

Here is the instruction and kindly advise what I have done wrong against the the one I have done on February 3, 2018 above.

  • On all the redirects you want deleted replace: #REDIRECT [[Where the article points to]] to {{subst:rfd|content=#REDIRECT [[Where the article points to]]}}
  • Click here to add the redirects you want deleted to today's discussion. Add a new section.
  • Add this text: {{subst:rfd2|redirect=The first redirect page you want deleted|target=Where that article is currently pointing to}}
  • And underneath that: {{subst:rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=The second redirect page you want deleted|target=Where that article is currently pointing to}}
  • Do that as many times as you need to and on the final entry replace the }} with<nowiki> |text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.}} CASSIOPEIA(talk) 15:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This are the pages created by User:Rickyc123, which he has created hundred of redirect pages with only text on the page "#REDIRECT" where the pages have not meet notability guidelines, pages were previously RfD, CSD, which had created by other editors and also by Rickyc123 himself/herself. There is an ANI reported against Rickyc123, see here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Gaming the system - vandalism user:Rickyc123 on copied from draft page and pasted content to make the article owned by him/her, as well as create article with only "#REDIRECT" and immediately redirect to a general page, example of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 December 31#The ABC Murders (TV series), and the one I am trying to do above which I failed to report correctly. What he/she trying to do is to create the page and immediately redirect the page to a general page and once other editors create the page when the nobility is met, the article become owned by Rickyc123. Here is Rickyc123 page creation log, see here [2] as one could see the there are many article created with size ranging from 17-42 that had created and immediate redirected.

Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 16:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

The nomination looks good to me. I don't see anything that needs to be fixed. -- Tavix (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Tavix, Thank your for the reply. The errors were fixed by [[User:Dancter] and thankful to him/her all looks good now. However, I still want to clarify the above step by step instruction should be corrected I think (kindly verify) as I think I added [[ ]] on the page titles (I am not sure these were the mistakes). Kindly advise. Thank you in advance. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 19:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Arbcom sanctions[edit]

resolved, template readded by Bishonen. -- Tavix (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Do you have any idea of the policy re: arbcom sanctions? They have to be notified if not already done so in the last twelve months. Now please revert yourself at Uanfala's talk page. There is an ongoing problem, yes, but I think you may be surprised how many people are experiencing it. - Sitush (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

If someone uninvolved feels they need to inform them, they may do so. -- Tavix (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Now that is a PA. You seem not to have a clue what ia going on here. - Sitush (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
My apologies if you took it the wrong way, I'll retract. If I don't have a clue what is going on, then I suggest you take the effort to explain yourself. -- Tavix (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
It has been explained to Uanfala, and RegentsPark was involved the discussion at Talk:Dras. And the point about the notifications has been explained to you: I didn't devise a system whereby someone has to be notified even if they're clearly experienced in the topic area etc and I actually think it is rather silly but there we go. Admins such as Bishonen push this need for notification point because it makes it easier for them to deal with things in the topic area, although I suspect this one would end up at ANI rather than some unilateral application of admin discretion. - Sitush (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm referring to Chib, not Dras, which is what that section involved. You're letting your disagreements with Uanfala spill over into other things. I don't find Uanfala's deprodding problematic, which is what I wanted to say in the first place. I recommend you take Chib (clan) to AfD and get it fleshed out there. If the article can be well-sourced and it's kept, then great, Wikipedia is improved. If not, then it will be deleted with less effort than has already been expelled here. Does that make sense? -- Tavix (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, I have no idea why you were referring to Chib because I wasn't and I made it clear that the Dras thing was an example of disruption coming on top of a de-PROD that at the time had no basis and as of now still doesn't. As you know from my reply to you on Uanfala's talk page, I've already explained why I am not taking it to AfD yet. I don't think you realise just how many instances there have been of that contributor bending the rules in a way that isn't collaborative. Sooner or later it is going to come to a head and I think you will find that there are several admins and experienced contributors in the topic area who agree with me. Thus, warning and documenting is a part of the process. As I also said on their talk page - and you should have seen - they are capable of doing good things. - Sitush (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
The section on Uanfala's talk page we were discussing in is called "Chib". It was in that section where you dismissed a source as "speculative bollocks", assumed Uanfala removed the prod on the basis of "sod all", threatened ANI, and called Uanfala a "problematic editor". That's not appropriate for a valid de-prod, and I felt strongly enough about that to voice my opinion. -- Tavix (talk) 21:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, you are entitled to your opinion but not to bandy around your admin status as you did. - Sitush (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Weird, I don't recall doing that. -- Tavix (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
You're not having a good few hours, then. You've still not fixed the non sequitor above, you've created a very confusing situation in the sanctoins logs, you seem not to have done your research before intervening with comments about AfD'ing Chib (clan), and you said this, although you cannot recall it. - Sitush (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
There aren't any admin actions there. -- Tavix (talk) 23:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I didn't say they were admin actions. Try reading what I did say, which was that you were bandying around your admin status. Doling out a "final warning" like you did is chilling, as similarly was removing the arbcom notices I am obliged to post. This is heading towards WP:AN, you know, because what started out as just possibly a misunderstanding is turning into a significant display of incompetence on your part. - Sitush (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
My status is irrelevant. Nowhere did I make any mention of it, so saying that I'm "bandying" it is inaccurate. If you feel the need to post the template, go for it, just please explain how it's relevant when you do. -- Tavix (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Sheesh, I've just noticed that you retracted by removing rather than striking above, which makes a nonsense of my comment at 19:04. I appreciate the retraction but surely you know not to do that? - Sitush (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Since I was pinged: Hi, Tavix. I'm always having to explain to new users that they mustn't remove or change a post of their own if somebody has already replied to it, because that wrongfoots the other person. I'm a little shocked to see an admin doing it, but I assume it was in a fit of absent-mindedness. Please consider restoring your comment and instead using strikeout to retract your words.

Also, I must agree with Sitush that it was a bad idea of yours to remove the discretionary sanctions alerts from Uanfala's page. Admins aren't allowed to place discretionary sanctions unless the user has been alerted to them by one of these specific templates. Please see WP:AC/DS. It's a very bureaucratic system, unfortunately, but it's what arbcom has placed, and we have to work within it. As it is at this moment, Uanfala has been alerted, but hasn't had much of a chance to read the alert, since you removed it just one minute later. An unusual situation. Please don't remove discretionary sanctions alerts again. They're not "sticks", but an unfortunate bureaucratic necessity, instituted in this case by arbcom because of the difficulties of adminning Indian/Pakistani/Afghani articles. Bishonen | talk 20:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC).

Per WP:DTTR, it's a better idea to explain why an editor feels another editor is violating discretionary sanctions. The template can be added along with the reasoning if required. -- Tavix (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
That would be a little paradoxical, or even confusing for the addressee, since the template explicitly states "This message... does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date" (bolding in the original). The essay WP:DTTR doesn't really come into it. Bishonen | talk 21:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC).
Sure, the template does not in and of itself imply there is any misconduct, but someone wouldn't place the template for no reason. Explaining why they are placing the template is helpful, which is something that the template itself cannot do. -- Tavix (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I did explain why. - Sitush (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Simply stating they are "gaming the system" is not explaining why. -- Tavix (talk) 21:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I have already addressed this. You are either being obtuse or you haven't read the links that were provided. - Sitush (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2030 Olympics[edit]

I believe I had tried to create a page for the 2030 Olympics so now there are other pages they want me to comment on? I just received this msg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wifey93 (talkcontribs) 07:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Beckham, David[edit]

Hi, Could I ask why "Beckham, David" was moved back to "Beckham David" .... the former are the common redirects here and the later makes it sound like there's someone called "Beckham David" and so the comma would (or should) clear up any confusion that may arise ?, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 22:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The redirect Beckham David was created with the edit summary Created as redirect; it's linked at WP:TOPRED. As that's associated with Beckham David (not Beckham, David), the edit summary needs to stay at that location. If you think Beckham, David needed to be a redirect, you should have simply created that redirect rather than move an existing redirect. I'm not sure what you are getting at with the latter part of your note, as Beckham David still existed after you made the move. -- Tavix (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Ah right I hadn't checked the history .... I just assumed it was a typo, True I was actually gonna nominate it at some point, ah well thanks anyway. –Davey2010Talk 22:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Roster changes[edit]

Ok, that is fair. We were both premature in our roster changes. These changes will probably be done within 2 days, if not before. Oye289 (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. The last exhibition game is tonight, then the spring training roster can be switched to the regular season roster tomorrow. It'll make the most sense to make those changes then. -- Tavix (talk) 19:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Stephan Clark[edit]

Good day Tavix, according to this article and this article, Stephon Alonzo Clark's legal name is "Stephan Clark". Is there a good reason why you deleted this redirect? --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: restored. Please add that information to Shooting of Stephon Clark so it is actually clear why the redirect exists. -- Tavix (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

AMuse (software)[edit]

Hi, I redirected article you proded to Amiga software article. There is one solid review of AMuse in the Amiga Future magazine, but not much more. Too few RS for an article, but enough for a mere redirect, I think. Pavlor (talk) 05:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

  • There's not much of a mention there, but I won't object to it. Thanks for double checking my work. -- Tavix (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Closing tooltip RfD[edit]

I'm prepared to close the Tooltip RfD, but before doing so, I wondered if you had a good idea about how/where to advertise this undertaking. WP:AWB/TA seems more focused on quick and simple tasks, not something drawn out and involved as this. Is there a better place you know of? It'd be nice for it not to wallow. ~ Amory (utc) 15:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Amorymeltzer: I was under the impression that E to the Pi times i was going to take care of that part, but it seems they haven't been around in over a month now. WP:BOTREQ, perhaps? If there are no volunteers, I guess the result would be a default to keep until/unless someone cares enough to take care of it. -- Tavix (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I didn't think BOTREQ would work, since it will require a human to determine whether it's an abbreviation or not, and if not, whether to remove, replace with footnote, or something else. As for e, there were some other circumstances/behavior. I think I'll mull it over a bit; I suppose AWB/TA wouldn't be a bad place to solicit help regardless, maybe find an intrepid few folks? I suppose I could pick up AWB myself and triple my edit count... ~ Amory (utc) 16:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
If you want something broader than WP:BOTREQ, maybe WP:VPT? That seems to be a catch-all place for Wikipedia's techincal issues. -- Tavix (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

A goat for you![edit]

Boer Goat (8742860752).jpg

Thank you for your efforts in fighting trolls and vandals! (Gosh, I'm never sure if I'm grammatically correct when I say that, but thank you. Really.)

Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 03:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

derp[edit]

CleanupBarnstar.PNG The Cleanup Barnstar
I’ve only been doing this for like a decade, so of course I have no idea how to name an article. Thanks for fixing it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
@Beeblebrox: It happens to the best of us! :) I'd be impressed if anyone has all the naming conventions memorized... Thanks for the barnstar. -- Tavix (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Camden Highline[edit]

I'm not going to have another runaround with someone so willfully ignorant of deletion policy. -- Tavix (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

If you had looked at the edit history you would have seen that this was not eligable for speedy deletion as a U2 request has been explicitly declined previously and I also objected to speedy deletion. The criteria for speedy deletion make it clear that criteria only apply when there is no disagreement they do. Bad speedy deletions are one of the most harmful things any admin can do so please up your game. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 13:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC) Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 13:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

User pages of users that do not exist (check Special:Listusers), except user pages for IP users who have edited, redirects from misspellings of an established user's user page, and the previous name of a renamed user.. That checks out to me. User:Camden Highline doesn't have any declines in its history either. -- Tavix (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
The decline is now at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Camden_Highline&action=history but it still stands, as does my objection in the RfD. As I seem to repeatedly have to tell you it is not just about following the absolute letter of the policy (even though you didn't here) but about the spirit of it as well. Speedy deletion criteria are only valid if the page matches the letter and spirit of the criterion, i.e. only where speedy deletion would be uncontested if brought to an XfD. If someone objects to speedy deletion in good faith then it cannot by definition meet the criterion. Pages that do not meet a speedy deletion criterion must not be speedy deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 23:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Everything's bigger in Texas[edit]

Hi. I understand that removing each redirect severs the connection between route articles and park/loop route lists, but it is not common practice to link directly to a list. Those minimal details of routes should at the very least be put into a listicle, something like the Farm to Market roads, if not their own separate articles. If you're not convinced, feel free to undo the rest of my edits and take a look at the List of state highway spurs in Texas article. For a sense of consistency, that article needs redirects too. Cards84664 (talk) 01:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Primefac: I'd like to hear how we can blue link in one spot, and red link in another, what would the titles be? Cards84664 (talk) 01:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The proper way to fix a "looping redirect" is by removing the link from the article/list, not by deleting the redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 01:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Is there any way to keep the red link on the list? Kinda like a template that would automatically overwrite the redirect if an article was created? I'm asking since the majority of the list links are still red.Cards84664 (talk) 02:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
      • My recommendation would be to remove all links except for those that are articles. As articles are created, links can then be readded (usually the author does this). I am not aware of a way to do this automatically though. Deletion to create a WP:REDLINK is a rationale used at WP:RFD, if you still want to pursue that route. -- Tavix (talk) 02:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

You just requested a blocked editor to participate in an article talk page discussion. Thought you should know... - theWOLFchild 01:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Just curious, but why do you keep asking a blocked editor to participate in article talk page discussions when they can't? - theWOLFchild 23:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
    • See WP:RFD#HOWTO step three. Both of your comments are the same diff. -- Tavix (talk) 23:39, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Ah, he deleted it and I thought it was second one for some reason. But just the same, my second post prompted a reply here. As pointed out below, it is self-requested block. I took that to mean that user wants to be left alone for awhile, until they decide to return. I could be wrong on that, but still didnt see tbe point on notifying blocked users about discussions that cant participate in. - theWOLFchild 04:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
    • (talk page stalker) I agree that the talk pages of indefinitely blocked or long retired editors shouldn't be spammed with notices, but here the situation is different: the user was blocked only a week ago (so it's still within a window of time in which it's not improbable that their block might get appealed, and maybe they're still around and interested in what happens to their creations); more importantly in this case, if you look at the block log you'll see that it's a self-requested block, so the user can at any time request an unblock. – Uanfala (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)