Archive 1: Dec 2007 – Nov 2008 |
Deprodding of John Taylor (given name)
I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
tag from John Taylor (given name), which you proposed for deletion. It seems to be a valid WP:SIA of people with names beginning "John Taylor", regardless of whether it was a pen name or not a birth name; helps readers knowingly looking for a "John Taylor" instead of forcing them to a larger list of all John's. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}}
back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!—Bagumba (talk) 08:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Nomination of IPhone 12 for deletion
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20210802205101im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Ambox_warning_orange.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_orange.svg.png)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article IPhone 12 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/IPhone 12 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. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 04:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 4#Space programme of the United States
When I was adding a load of similar redirects to this discussion, I apparently missed listing U.S. space program. I imagine that if I listed it on today's RfD list it'd just get snow retargetted to match e.g. U. S. space program and U.S. Space Program, but I thought I'd get a second opinion about whether listing or just boldly retargetting is preferable. Thryduulf (talk) 13:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Why would that redirect be any different than the others? Just do it. -- Tavix (talk) 14:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Zeshan Mahmood
Thanks! Thank you so much for taking care of all the garbage redirects created by the Zeshan Mahmood sock. I appreciate that! --Yamla (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- You're welcome! I'm just happy for an opportunity to use the nuke tool, it's so much fun to use. -- Tavix (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Cup Foods
To help advertise its existence, should the redirect to "Cup Foods" not be restored during a DRV? --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- Are you thinking of Wikipedia:Deletion review#Temporary undeletion? That's done for a history review, not for advertising purposes. -- Tavix (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Dragon Challenge Page
I know you were trying to clean up some unfortunate page moves yesterday, but during all the moves and undoing moves we lost the article for Dragon Challenge / Dragon Challenge (roller coaster). All we have are circular redirects.—JlACEer (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- @JlACEer: Thanks for letting me know! It should be fixed now. I recall seeing the page after making the move, so I was confused how that happened. It looks like when I hit the back arrow to go back to where I was, it resubmitted the move action so I accidentally moved the page again, moving the resulting redirect over the article content without knowing it. -- Tavix (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Precious anniversary 5
![]() | |
Five years! |
---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Apology
Sorry if I came across as aggressive just then. I got distracted and forgot I’d reverted once which gives me the inadvertent impression of being some mad edit warring jerk. I think the lesson from this is, don’t edit Wikipedia on your smartphone after you’ve just been come in soaking wet from the pouring rain. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: Your apology has been accepted, that explanation makes a lot more sense. I'm not going to lie, I did get the impression that you were trying to be some mad edit warring jerk, which seemed very out of character so I'm glad that wasn't the case. -- Tavix (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hey, if Gerda says you are an awesome Wikipedian, who am I to argue? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
MagyarLinguist
Thinking about their contribution style at RfD and the type of messages they left on my talk page, I'm starting to get impressions of similarity between MagyarLinguist and SimonTrew (who was an English person living in Hungary who liked redirects, RfD, multiple languages and chatty discussions on tangents). I'm not confident in this, so I'm running it by you as someone who was familiar with Si Trew to get your thoughts before going any further in case I'm barking up the wrong tree. Thryduulf (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf: I'm glad I'm not the only one to think that Magyar is Si, but it's definitely a WP:DUCK to me. Given that the legal threat that got Si banned was against me, I'm too involved to take action myself, but you have my blessing. -- Tavix (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- I've blocked the account indef as a sock and opened an SPI to deal with IPs - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SimonTrew. I very rarely deal with SPIs so if you could take a look at it and fix or let me know if I've done anything wrong that would be great. Thryduulf (talk) 18:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Fjollträsk
Hello! The name redirected from does not appear in the article redirected to. Also, the redirect is not at this time up for deletion so that link is not currently valid. F Y I. Cordially, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 8#Fjollträsk. -- Tavix (talk) 03:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- On my screen that's a closed RfD. I am not en experienced deleter. Do we link to closed RfD's? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Some article deletion issues
Hey,
I noticed that two of my articles got deleted because of my presumed relation to UltraUsurper. Luckily there were draft versions of these articles that I kept, so not much progress was lost. I would like it if some sort of effort was made to reach out to me before this happened, it was jarring to find that these plus one other article of mine was deleted because of drama I never knew about. SwirlySolid (talk) 00:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- I did not delete any articles you created, the articles I deleted were created by The Incognito Guy. You are not presumed to be related to UltraUsurper. -- Tavix (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Nomination for merging of Template:Hover title
Template:Hover title has been nominated for merging with Template:Tooltip. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
RFD
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 6 You just relisted iTunes Chart but it looks like there was no header. I just listed a new one (Solfatata) and it is in the same section as the relist (both coincidentally started by me). Can you straighten this out. MB 23:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- @MB:
Done. Thanks for letting me know! I grabbed too much when bundling in the variant redirects. -- Tavix (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
"Tylenol (brand redirect)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Tylenol (brand redirect). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 19#Tylenol (brand redirect) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
SARS-2
Hi there, you marked the RfD as "closed as keep", but the discussion doesn't look like it's closed (not that it shouldn't be). Onel5969 TT me 00:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Rowley Jefferson's Awesome Friendly Adventure
Did you delete this article? If yes, do I need to know some important rules? Thanks! Aviation160 (talk) 23:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, it was deleted per WP:G5 because it was created by a banned editor. As long as you aren't evading a block or ban, it is nothing for you to worry about. If you want to know about important rules that can lead to pages being deleted, a good place to start is WP:CSD. -- Tavix (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Question about TFD for Template:Référence nécessaire
Thank you for taking the time to close the TFD for Template:Référence nécessaire, which currently has four transclusions that have turned red and will cause error reports to be populated. I wonder why you chose to delete the template entirely instead of placing it in the holding cell to be converted as you suggested in the close. Can you please let me know the policy- or guideline-based rationale behind your closing decision and subsequent deletion? Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- It was an RfD, not a TfD. RfDs are not usually (never?) listed in the holding cell for TfDs. I noticed there are transclusions, but they are all for user pages so I didn't think it necessary to fix (although feel free to fix them if you think otherwise!). The rationale for deletion for foreign language redirects can be found at WP:RFOREIGN. -- Tavix (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- That supplement appears to apply only to article space. Redirects in template space render the same as the English-language template; there is no chance of confusion about topics or articles. We have many useful redirects in template space that assist editors with translation of articles from other languages into English. I cited an actual guideline. Please reconsider this deletion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- I noted in my closing rationale that it is fine to repurpose it to use for translations. Per 86.23's reply at Template:要出典, it doesn't currently seem set up to work in that manner. However, I'll ping Plastikspork for that part since it sounds like they have offered to set that up. -- Tavix (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- If I knew how to repurpose it, whatever that means, I would happily do so. The redirect was working fine, and now it is broken, so I hope someone knows how to do this. Putting it in the holding cell would probably help. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- Jonesey95, I repurposed the French one, and my bot successfully used it to translate several pages. For the Chinese one, we need a date translator, or we just clobber the date and use the current date when substituting it. But, that one seems to be used less frequently (compared to the French one which is used all the time). Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- If I knew how to repurpose it, whatever that means, I would happily do so. The redirect was working fine, and now it is broken, so I hope someone knows how to do this. Putting it in the holding cell would probably help. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- I noted in my closing rationale that it is fine to repurpose it to use for translations. Per 86.23's reply at Template:要出典, it doesn't currently seem set up to work in that manner. However, I'll ping Plastikspork for that part since it sounds like they have offered to set that up. -- Tavix (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- That supplement appears to apply only to article space. Redirects in template space render the same as the English-language template; there is no chance of confusion about topics or articles. We have many useful redirects in template space that assist editors with translation of articles from other languages into English. I cited an actual guideline. Please reconsider this deletion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
For cleaning up User:1234qwer1234qwer4/a subpage somewhere! 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC) |
vacuum energy density
Why was "vacuum energy density" deleted? This should redirect to "vacuum energy." Nicole Sharp (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Nicole Sharp: It was nuked when cleaning up after a disruptive user. You're free to create it if you wish! -- Tavix (talk) 23:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Everything Conference
Tavix, it looks like you deleted Everything Conference after an RfD a couple of months ago. The redirect seems like it was created after a merge. Did you verify that none of its content was in Newfrontiers before doing so? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I verified Steel1943's claim that none of the material from the previous article was still intact. Are you wanting to incorporate something about the conference in the article? I'd be willing to restore it for you. -- Tavix (talk) 23:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Tavix: Nope, I was just double-checking. Thanks, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Non admin AfD closures
Hi. I just had a quick look at User:Tavix/non-admin closes. There's a related discussion here on my talk where I've wondered if non-admin AfD closures (barring obvious bad faith speedy keeps) should be restricted via an RfC. Would be interested to know your thoughts; I've never started a wide-reaching RfC before, and I'd want to make sure I have a good opening argument for the proposal with lots of unambiguous evidence first. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- It's nice that essay is seeing the light of day outside of a perennial proposal! WP:BADNAC already restricts non-admins from making "close calls". If that clause was better enforced, I would bet most of the problems would diminish. That being said, the language could be tightened up a bit so that non-admins would still be able to make "obvious" non-delete closes. An RfC to that effect would be one step in that direction and might actually have a chance to pass. I think your suggestion might be a step too far to gain consensus, because after all, there are a lot of helpful non-admin closures and they do help with the administrative workload. As for evidence, I'm not as active as I'd like to be at AfD, so I don't have any examples off the top of my head. Trawling the archives of WP:DRV might be a good place to start, complaints about non-admin closures pop up there often enough. -- Tavix (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that
This edit made me laugh. :) J947's public account 00:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks! Even more frustrating for me was that I somehow right-clicked, and then clicked under the submit button twice before it processed. Knowing it was 23:59 when I went to nominate it probably hurt me more than helped... -- Tavix (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- Heh, those things happen. J947's public account 00:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Enquiry about POCO (company) article deletion
Hi, why did you delete this article? Is there any issues with this article? Can I re-create this article? User:AthulKriZz (talk) 10:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- @AthulKriZz: It was deleted per WP:G5 because it was created by someone who was banned from Wikipedia. It had nothing to do with the article itself, so if you'd like to create it, go right ahead! Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Gender symbols
At "redirects for discussion", 26 March, I thought that you concluded that ♂ and ♀ should be redirected to gender symbol and the other symbols kept as is.
So did you really intend to mark ♂ and ♀ "closed as keep" as you have actually done? (rather than redirect to gender symbol)? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- I followed 053pvr's proposal, which you supported, in that ♂️ and ♀️ were retargeted to gender symbol and the other three (♂, ♀ , and ☿) kept (to the respective sections of planet symbols). -- Tavix (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- (!) I thought it was just a browser dependent rendering difference! I didn't spot that there are actually two versions of each. Well, as it so marginal, I won't pursue it but may I suggest that if you encounter a similar case again that you require the proposal to detail the codepoints involved. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Well to be fair, they do render differently depending on your browser. One set is defined as planet symbols, so your OS might give them a bit of an astronomy flair, and the other set is defined for gender symbols, and might render them accordingly (perhaps as a bathroom sign?). Usually I link to Emojipedia for Emoji redirects (which gives the Unicode definition, popular usage, and renderings for all major OS's), but only one set of the two are Emojis, so I thought it might be unnecessarily confusing to do that here. -- Tavix (talk) 12:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry to bother you again but I am really struggling with this. I think that there has been a good faith misunderstanding because of a URL artefact.
- My reading was that ♂ and ♀ should redirect to gender symbol and ☿ should stay as a redirect to planetary symbol, per the Unicode specification
- There is only one symbol each for Male/Mars and Female/Venus: U+2642 ♂ MALE SIGN and U+2640 ♀ FEMALE SIGN.
- That it has been possible to have two redirect articles for each is due to a strange artefact: compare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E2%99%82%EF%B8%8F with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E2%99%82 : both address %E2%99%82 (U+2642) but the first has an additional colour rendering that is only evident to sighted visitors. It is visible on my (Android) phone and on Firefox on Windows, but not on my Chromebook.
- I really don't believe that 053pvr really intended to 'pull a fast one' like this. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- I have backed out of my close and relisted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 12#Planetary or gender symbols. Let's continue the conversation there. I was unable to verify what the two non-emoji characters were, but took 053pvr at face value when I went to close. Of course, I should have read the section on the planet symbols, where it says at Planet symbols#Mars "Its Unicode codepoint is U+2642 ♂ MALE SIGN (HTML
♂
·♂
)." I'll leave a vote to that effect. -- Tavix (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- I have backed out of my close and relisted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 12#Planetary or gender symbols. Let's continue the conversation there. I was unable to verify what the two non-emoji characters were, but took 053pvr at face value when I went to close. Of course, I should have read the section on the planet symbols, where it says at Planet symbols#Mars "Its Unicode codepoint is U+2642 ♂ MALE SIGN (HTML
- Well to be fair, they do render differently depending on your browser. One set is defined as planet symbols, so your OS might give them a bit of an astronomy flair, and the other set is defined for gender symbols, and might render them accordingly (perhaps as a bathroom sign?). Usually I link to Emojipedia for Emoji redirects (which gives the Unicode definition, popular usage, and renderings for all major OS's), but only one set of the two are Emojis, so I thought it might be unnecessarily confusing to do that here. -- Tavix (talk) 12:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- (!) I thought it was just a browser dependent rendering difference! I didn't spot that there are actually two versions of each. Well, as it so marginal, I won't pursue it but may I suggest that if you encounter a similar case again that you require the proposal to detail the codepoints involved. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- When I made my comment at RFD, I was on a Mac. It displayed one set of symbols as astronomy symbols and the other set as gender symbols. Therefore, I made my retarget !vote. Now, I'm on a Windows device, which does not diffrentiate between the two sets of symbols. Because there is only one definition in Unicode for these. I have changed my !vote to retarget all. 053pvr (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Docker
Thankyou for moving Docker (disambiguation) to Docker which has been disputed for years. However the move deleted all the edit history of the article that was merged into Stevedore and as I recommended the edit history should probably be moved to Docker (occupation). Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for following up, I had overlooked that earlier. -- Tavix (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Redirect
You recently reverted an edit here. I take no stance on the issue itself, but the text you removed from that page had also been added here at basically the same time. It seems to me that the note should probably be in both places, or neither. (I also apologize if I am using your talk page in an inappropriate manner or if this should have been posted somewhere else instead.) Jdaloner (talk) 01:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- This is a WP:TALKFORK that should be responded to at this discussion. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Feel free to remove the other addition if you want, but I was more okay with that one since it was specifically about misspellings. The one I reverted was too much of a shoehorn. -- Tavix (talk) 02:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
A rarity
I have no clue if this is the sort of thing that interests you, but I found it pretty nifty: You are the first person in RfD history (Log/ era · Redirect_Archives/ era) to use "harden" as a boldfaced proposed outcome. I guess it's not often that it would come up, but still, not every day you see a new proposed outcome at RfD. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 19:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not at all surprised given the fact that soft redirects aren't supposed to be used in mainspace, and they're fairly niche to begin with, but that is a nice little nugget of knowledge. To be fair, it's not that rare for a soft redirect to a sister project (usually Wiktionary) to be hardened as a redirect to a local page, but in that situation you would just use the word "retarget". To use "harden" as the action, you'd have to like the current target, but not like the softness. -- Tavix (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
"🙏" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 🙏. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 3#🙏 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 142.161.113.242 (talk) 04:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Persian Sea Rfd
Just for your information since you closed out the long-winded and complicated Persian Sea Rfd. I had my vote ready after reading through it 3 or 4 times. But was a bit late. However I added the comments at the bottom of the Rfd. Jay (Talk) 17:56, 4 July 2021 (UTC)