This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Thanks for uploading File:Green River College logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

May I ask why you've moved a redirect that is currently at RFD, removed the tag and suppressed the RD under G7? How does this qualify under G7 or any of the other suppression criteria? Praxidicae (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Praxidicae: Please see my response in the RFD. Also, I removed the tag since the redirect which the tag was placed when I removed the tag was not the title nominated. Steel1943 (talk) 15:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Praxidicae: Seeing this now, give me a few minutes, and I think I'll have a resolution amicable for all parties involved. Steel1943 (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

    @Praxidicae: All should be good with that nomination now. Please let me know if there's anything I missed to clean it up. Steel1943 (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello Steel, I'm just briefly reaching out to request information from an experienced editor such as yourself on the correct procedure for escalating a dispute between editors. I saw that you had previously removed a page created by the editor in question, and that you have been a part of Wikipedia for a very long time. I would just like to get a fair resolution, while conforming to the rules of Wikipedia, without causing any kind of unnecessary fuss or any friction, and while being able to understand whether the editor has the authority to make the decision they have, and whether that is conclusively up to them. I've asked them 4 times for advice on the process of gaining a resolution, but they have chosen to refuse me that assistance. Any advice would be very much appreciated, and I would like to proceed in the correct manner. Metatronsqube (talk) 13:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• It's difficult, and rather impossible, for me to provide any input when I have no idea what you are referring to. Steel1943 (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the ((admin help)) template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Could an administrator please speedy delete all of the pages found at Special:PrefixIndex/User:Steel1943/deletethese per WP:U1? (I was going to tag them all myself, but there's 100+ of them, and most are probably also eligible for WP:G8 as redirects with nonexistent targets, as well as WP:G6 as pages created in error.) All of these pages were redirects since they were created; for specific/further details, see Portal talk:Law of England and Wales#Requested move 20 August 2019. Steel1943 (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Please do not remove nonexistant portals from Module:Portal/images. In addition to portals, this module provides image links for WikiProjects, Notice Boards, and userboxes. Thanks,  Buaidh  talk contribs 00:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Buaidh: The discussion that has been archived at Template talk:Portal/Archive 9#Remove icons for redlinks would probably disagree with your revert of my edits, especially the parts of my edits you reverted that restored icons for portal pages that never existed, but alas, I'd rather edit other places where there's apparently less reactive drama such as this, so it's whatever. Steel1943 (talk) 05:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

No drama. I'm merely pointing out that this module has multiple uses beyond just portals. For example, see Category:Welsh Wikipedians. Thanks,  Buaidh  talk contribs 16:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Buaidh: Fair enough. I suppose the more proper word that I should have used instead of "drama" was "disagreement". But yeah, I tend to avoid certain discussions these days, such as one which may arise from discussing the schematics behind our referenced edits, especially if I don't/didn't see the whole picture. Steel1943 (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Probably certain templates shouldn't use modules for which they are not obviously important. :) --Izno (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

There are over one thousand templates that access Module:Portal/images. They were first created in 2010. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 21:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, because Template:Portal/Images was created in 2010. My point is not invalidated by the age of those other templates anyway. --Izno (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Izno: Since the only resources that can access Module:Portal/images are templates, properly Module:Portal/images should be moved to Module:Template/images. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 03:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Please do not give modules names that make them subpages of non-existent pages. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Are you also a septuagenarian? I would like to change the name of WikiProject Wikipedians aged 70 and older to WikiProject Senior Wikipedians and lower the age requirement to 60, 55, or even 50. I would like to encourage more older users to participate. We could also tackle the issues of ageism on Wikipedia. Any thoughts? Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 03:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Buaidh: I am not... Steel1943 (talk) 20:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Buaidh: However, I gotta admit that "...If you die, please move your name here so we know you are not just loafing." gave me a bit of a laugh. :) Steel1943 (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I see you have been removing ALL external links from tennis player bio sub-pages. I'm not saying I disagree with you, but what do you mean by "their existence here causes errors and throws the page into incorrect categories?" Looking at one example of [[ Andy Murray career statistics]], what errors and what wrong categories? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Fyunck(click): Category:ATP template with ID not in Wikidata, Category:ITF template with ID not in Wikidata, Category:Davis Cup player template with ID not in Wikidata, etc. In each case I've run into so far, the corresponding biographical article for each "career statistics" article is not in these categories because the templates are intended to be placed on the biographical articles per the way they function. The templates that put the "career statistics" pages in these categories are ((ATP)), ((ITF profile)), ((Davis Cup player)), etc.. Steel1943 (talk) 20:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • ...And now, and ((WTA)) and ((Fed Cup player)) to that list... Steel1943 (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

OK - so evad hasnt been on recently, he has real life things that preclude regular editing. He will be back, and he will definitely sort out the script issues. Its just some of us are here too much, and even a month seems like an eternity ... JarrahTree 14:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• ...Considering XFDcloser is having a new issue where it is now hiding closed discussions on RfD, amongst other things, and that people keeps making requests, well, who would have known. No matter though; I just edit here. :) Steel1943 (talk) 15:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Your actions there are certainly bureaucratically justified, but I would have hoped a little experience and common sense would have resulted in the inevitable by closer decision rather than restoring and prolonging the confusing and misleading situation (where Find My iPhone is at Find My, etc.) originally created by someone who understandably but incorrectly assumed that Find My was a rename of Find My iPhone. --В²C ☎ 19:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Born2cycle: In all honesty, from what I saw with the way the discussion was going, even if the issue you are referring to did not happen, I still would have relisted the discussion since I did not see consensus in the discussion itself given the two opinions/votes present in the discussion when I viewed it. Steel1943 (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, I know. But isn't the confusion and misunderstanding in the commenting prior to mine obvious? And the views clearly implied (and explicit in edit summaries) by those involved with the moves you reverted could be considered too. In other words, would you be willing to bet any significant amount of money this will end up anywhere other than the three articles named after the three corresponding apps? So why not just cut to the chase, especially given the alternative of putting the articles in a confusing and misleading configuration. For example, someone might now be inclined to update the article about Find My iPhone' to be about Find My since it's sitting at Find My. So this seemed like a good place to apply WP:IAR. After all, in the unlikely event anyone objected you could have undone the bold close I'm suggesting. Anyway, I get what you did and why, I just wanted you to know why I thought it was a little short-sighted and not optimal; water under the bridge. I've asked the others to reconsider. --В²C ☎ 19:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
    • @Born2cycle: I get what you mean, even being a "probably-more-often-than-I-should" enforcer of WP:IAR myself. The way I see this discussion, there really is/was a fine line between doing what seems obvious versus being bureaucratic. I fact, I had to put a bit of thought into the decision I made for the discussion before I performed the reverts and relist I did. I suppose at this juncture, here's my take on the current state of the discussion: If the move discussion was still just for Find My (the article formerly at Find My iPhone before it was moved), per WP:RELIST, there is now consensus and I would go ahead and move the pages without waiting another 7 days. However, in the discussion's current state, Find My (app) has been added to the discussion, so technically, WP:RELIST does not apply to moving that page now, but then again, the scenario with that was created by me, making me the culprit for creating the very situation being discussed currently. So ... yes, there's a fine line here, and it's not even clear if WP:IAR would apply to moving the pages now as it may be okay to move the pages and it not being per WP:IAR. I may go ahead and do that soon, but I'd feel more comfortable with such a move happening "now" if the one editor who overwrote Find My when it was a redirect participate in the discussion to ensure further consensus on it. (I will ping them again in the discussion shortly.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
      • Arg geez, I don't need them to state is specifically ... they already did implicitly before I moved the pages by creating the situation I reverted. Going to go move the pages... Steel1943 (talk) 20:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
        • LOL, thank you. Honestly, I can't imagine anyone reasonably objecting to this close. It's already much better/clearer. Thanks again! --В²C ☎ 21:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you very much for your help on the Finnic peoples article a while ago. An editor has renamed the article back to Baltic Finns now, which looks like based on false information, and I cannot rename the article back on my own because they also created another Finnic peoples (disambiguation) page. I have added more sources on the talk page, but the editor has provided no sources of their own to support the move. Are you able to chip in and offer your opinon? Thank you. Blomsterhagens (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Blomsterhagens can't be bothered to read the refs in the leads of the articles they've edited, and claims that they don't exist. I welcome an informed discussion, but this is ridiculous. — kwami (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

FYI, these same notes have been left on my talk page, too; see also Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#‎Finnic peoples. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Happy Anniversary. Thanks for all your work here at the 'pedia! MarnetteD|Talk 15:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey, Steel1943. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! PATH SLOPU 09:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

You edit conflicted with me, as I closed a discussion ([1]), but I have reverted my closure, you can add your vote. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 19:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• @James-the-Charizard: Thanks! I would have been okay if it was left closed, but since you have reopened it, I'll restore my statement. Steel1943 (talk) 22:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

  I reopened it because Tavix asked me to reverse my close. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 00:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

  Ah, I see... Steel1943 (talk) 02:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

What does "wd" mean? I believe any string of text can be used in that portion of the NFL.com URL and return the same results, so is there some significance to "wd"? Also, I think we should incorporate the new parameter you created into the existing |nflnew= parameter and have a bot remove all of the player names from the existing field. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Eagles247: the "wd" represents (as you probably saw) ... I guess ... the new format that NFL.com uses in their URLs for players ... and I have NO idea what it means. (It was the string that Wikidata uses for these links via D:Property:P3539, so it probably means "Wikidata".) But wow ... you are right about being able to use "any" text string in those urls. With that being said, I don't mind if you had any desire to change that parameter's name ... but would probably prefer to keep the "wd" as the URL since I was planning on attempting to set up the template to pull that parameter from Wikidata at some point for subjects that have a D:Property:P3539 value in Wikidata but not a forced "nflwd" parameter value or whatever ... if I can figure it out, and I probably can. (Also, I support the idea of getting a bot to remove the player names from those fields, and would be perfectly okay if my addition to the template was incorporated into the "nflnew" parameter instead of being a new parameter [like I already set up with "nflwd".]) Steel1943 (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• You're probably right that "wd" refers to "Wikidata". Incorporating the value from Wikidata directly into the infobox without the need for an NFL parameter at all is a great idea! I'd much rather see a permanent solution (having the NFL page already loaded into each template) than a temporary one with the |nfl= and |nflnew= mess that's currently being used. Let me know if you need any help with that. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • At the present time, my idea is to work the template so that it pulls the value/information from Wikidata if there is no "nfl" or "nflnew/nfl-new" parameter. I suppose this functionality would be similar to how I recently updated Template:NFL.com player. (Even with that though, I think the idea to have a bot strip the player prefix from the "nflnew/nfl-new" parameters already in transclusions of Template:Infobox NFL biography and then force the "nflnew/nfl-new" parameter to include the "wd" in place where the playername URL information was previously can happen at anytime, and I support it wholly.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

  @Eagles247: I think that did it. Steel1943 (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

  ...and that too. Steel1943 (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• Great! Thanks for doing that. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey, would you mind notifying WikiProject Language about the langauge RFD? Considering this would affect almost all articles in it's scope, editors there might be interested. I'd do it myself, but I commented in the discussion and am also a participant in that WikiProject so don't want it to look biased. Feel free to also notify wikiprojects you think might be interested; it's an RFD with policy implications so it should probably be advertised widely. Wug·a·po·des​ 19:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Wugapodes: I'll be honest, I do not see the utility in that since the issue is about the spelling of the word "language", and is not about the subject of language(s) themselves. I won't stop anyone else from doing that though. Steel1943 (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

...Also, you may be interested in seeing Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 13#Redirects containing "Cheif". Steel1943 (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• I cannot history-merge Talk:Race of ancient Egyptians and Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy, as I cannot find a complete clear cut-and-paste event between them. They each have a long list of archives. There may have been a long history of partial cut-and-paste events between them. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I have actually been slow-walking the merger of material from the former English law portal in order to avoid creating an imbalance of UK materials, particularly with the DYK's. I should have noted that somewhere, but I didn't think anyone else would bother working on them. However, it is no big deal - we will get it sorted out in time. Since the material has been moved, if you could help fill in the new information at Portal:Law/Maintenance, that would be much appreciated. BD2412 T 22:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• @BD2412: Before I started my work for the merge, I did see that you had deleted some of the redundant pages ... so in effect, if there are any other duplicates, I did not catch them since I did not look for them. Either way, I'll give that worklist a check here in a bit. (I think the merge is almost done.) Steel1943 (talk) 01:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • There are no duplicates, but my concern was that the addition of all these topics on the law of England should be balanced by the addition of topics on the law of other countries. BD2412 T 01:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
    • @BD2412: Ah, maybe the idea there, considering that this is a merge, would be to look for additional content from other non-US or non-UK countries. (I think I recall seeing that the "Law" entires were heavily US-centric, so may need to divvy it up a bit, but not remove anything unless the amount of entries goes over 100 since that numbered template limits to 100, and I tried to figure out how to change that to a higher limit but couldn't figure it out.) Steel1943 (talk) 02:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I've noticed that you are starting to move a lot of pages to different names, and if I'm honest some of these just perplex me. I see no reason why Periscope or F-1 should be called "video games" when they have absolutely zero video elements whatsoever, instead using electro-mechanical parts and hardware. Gradius I also reverted your move as there is only one video game called "Gradius" and makes no sense to have the release year as part of the title. Please stop making these inappropriate page moves. Thank you. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 20:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Namcokid47: Not inappropriate: The WP:NCVGDAB disambiguation policy is rather clear on why I have been moving the titles to where I have been, and due to the moves being clear examples of when to move (such as not using "(arcade game)" in disambiguators and and clear guidance to use "(video game)" instead), did not foresee any issues with the ones I have moved so far. If you have an issue with the way that WP:NCVGDAB is worded, I would recommend starting a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (video games) to get the WP:NCVGDAB section reworded. (And also, regarding the "F1" titles: See Talk:F-1 (video game)#Requested move 8 December 2019. And for Gradius (1985 video game): I was not done making edits to resolve that since the subject at Nemesis (Game Boy) is also called "Gradius", and was in the process of making that clearer but then real life got in the way.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Nemesis GB is only referred to as "Gradius" on the Konami GB Collection, an obscure Japan-only release from 1997. The game was called Nemesis in Japan and North America, so I see no reason to rename the original Gradius article when the article you're using to support your argument isn't even called Gradius. It's also ignoring Wikipedia:COMMON NAME by a longshot, which is also why I oppose it. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 20:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
    • @Namcokid47: "Oppose" what? You seem to be making assumptions about what I was in the process of doing. I was going to move Nemesis (Game Boy video game) to Nemesis (1990 video game) (again, per WP:NCVGDAB since Nemesis (1985 video game) is a redirect to the article now at Gradius (video game) and again per WP:NCVGDAB, release years are preferred over platform names in disambiguators), then create Gradius (1990 video game) as a redirect towards it. Yep ... no WP:COMMONNAME argument there ... Steel1943 (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
      • You're losing me here. What you're saying is that you are trying to rename Nemesis GB to "Nemesis (1990 video game)", then create a redirect to that article called "Gradius (1990 video game)", then rename Gradius (video game) to "Gradius (1985 video game)" again? Basically renaming the arcade Gradius article based on a redirect? I'm not sure what you're trying to do here.... Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 21:09, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) @Namcokid47: Yeah, that was my plan. Eh, either way, since we are starting to have a dispute over which policy holds more ground (WP:COMMONNAME versus WP:NCVGDAB), I'm going to hold off these types of moves for now since "this policy hold more weight that this policy" arguments I tend to avoid due to the fact that Wikipedia policies being streamilimed are always a work in progress, and conflicting-policy disputes are a huge unnecessary energy and time burn for me when I could be doing more uncontroversial cleanup tasks. (This is nothing against you; in fact, I'm glad you brought this up so that I am aware of a hole in our policies that led to this discussion.) Happy editing! Steel1943 (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
          • No worries here. I shouldn't have gotten so worked up about it (which tends to happen quite a bit when it comes to stuff like this). Thanks again. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 21:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
            • @Namcokid47: Just FYI, I now understand better what I screwed up, and have reverted some of the pages I moved. The articles F-1 (arcade game) and Periscope (arcade game) are now located back at their original titles. Steel1943 (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I've found a couple of sources. I know that's not really enough to make any real decisions but I just want you to know what I've seen. I don't really have time to do more today.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Read the talk page next time. This was discussed. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 19:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Insertcleverphrasehere: Read WP:A and WP:CWW. Splitting page histories like that is against both of those policies. Steel1943 (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

  Steel1943, It was a bit complicated as there was a name change and merge happening at the same time. In short: Soumya-8974 created a new article for the merge target and redirected the others to it instead of renaming one of the previous articles and then merging the content from the other one (which is what we had agreed upon). This isn't a good idea as all of the ongoing talk page stuff gets shunted off to an unused redirect and the page watchers all lose track of the article. I discussed this on the talk page before doing the round robin move (choosing the BFR page as it has the longest history and most page watchers). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 19:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

  @Insertcleverphrasehere: Well ... I 100% disagree with the way it was handled for the reasons that I stated in my edit summaries. The talk page with the most edit history is for the subject at BFR (rocket), obviously. The page that Soumya-8974 created is not the same page as any of the history for the subject "BFR (rocket)", but rather is a bit of a "list" page for several projects ongoing or formerly by SpaceX. Anyways ... I'm sorry, but if we cannot come to an agreement here, I will have to start an WP:RFC for this since the edits you have done have fractured the histories of the pages, which goes against the concepts behind WP:A/WP:CWW. Steel1943 (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

  Starship development history isn't a new article. It's a merger of the old ITS launch vehicle article and the old BFR (rocket) article. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 19:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

  @Insertcleverphrasehere: You just validated my point: The new article is not an alteration of the BFR (rocket) article, but rather a new article created as a merger of multiple articles. To hide the edit history of the "rocket" article under the history of the "list" article really is a WP:CUTPASTE issue as it screws up edit histories and editor attributions. The "rocket" article's edit history should he at the rocket article, and the list edit history should be at the list article. If your ultimate concern is that the discussion is fragmented, then move everything back and put a ((Archive)) template on the list article's talk page referring to the rocket article's talk page after the moves are reverted again ... as, of course, IMO, they should be. Steel1943 (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

  Steel1943, There was a discussion about this at Talk:ITS launch vehicle. The only attribution issue that remains is possibly that the work of the merger itself (Soumya-8974's work merging the articles) isn't currently attributed in the proper place. We could request an admin histmerge this into Starship development history or I could put a notice at Talk:Starship development history. Both would solve the issue. Which do you prefer? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 19:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

  Steel1943, Another major issue there is that all the talk page watchers are lost (over 160 of them). Again, I brought this up at the talk page (now Talk:BFR (rocket)) before doing the move. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 19:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

  @Insertcleverphrasehere: I'm still thinking about the first statement, but in regards to what you said: "...all the talk page watchers are lost...". Did you know that is not true is page moves are involved? Page watchers travel with a page when it moves, as well as automatically have the redirect that was created on their watchlist? In other words, when a page is moved, page watchers end up having the new title and the redirect in their watchlist. Steel1943 (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

  Steel1943, We wanted the talk page watchers from the old BFR (rocket) page to end up at Starship development history. Soumya-8974 created an entirely new article (with no watchers) and then redirected the other two articles towards it. (resulting in 60-odd watchers from the ITS article and 160-odd watchers from the BFR article not having anything in their watchlist except a redirect). A rename of one of the articles and then a merger of the content from the other was the original intent of the discussions, I was simply trying to enact that by doing the page swap. Note that the 'new' article is almost entirely made of cut content from the previous two articles. Not all the content was added though, because some of the old BFR (rocket) content now belongs at SpaceX Starship (the place for current development information. Honestly this whole process has been a mess. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

  Steel1943, I have to head off to work now, it seems you have most of he info about the backstory here now. Do what you feel needs to be done. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

  @Insertcleverphrasehere: I think I'll just drop the stick. This has all been exciting, and I think my opinion of what should have happened is not as important as keeping everything stable at this point. Anyways, thanks for the cordial responses here (considering that I could not say the same for most of mine), and hope the rest of your day is void of stress. Steel1943 (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

  Steel1943, Well, I also apologise for my first message here on this page being so brusque. This article and the naming of the vehicle has been a mess from start to finish, largely due to Elon's constant name changes and unclear demarcation of versions. We ended up with three articles where probably one would have sufficed (the Mars Colonial Transporter was another name for the same vehicle concept!). In the end we decided to have one 'historical' article and one 'current' article, but yeah it has been a long journey getting here (including the merger discussion that languished for almost two months leaving us with essentially two starship articles in the meantime (one at BFR (rocket) and one at SpaceX Starship). I guess 'mess' doesn't quite cover it. We might be changing the article title again as well! Haha, well that's Wikipedia. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 22:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

  @Insertcleverphrasehere: Ha. Yeah ... I'm a bit familiar with the naming controversies of the BFR. Steel1943 (talk) 01:31, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Just a note to highlight that the merge and name move was discussed extensively and voted by the Spaceflight Project members. The user Soumya-8974 means well, but he is a newbie often engaging in administrative activities that are well beyond his skill level. User Insertcleverphrasehere is performing an appropriate cleanup to preserve the history. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true. No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well S. MarnetteD|Talk 21:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding ((subst:User:Flaming/MC2008)) to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings".  :) BOZ (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello Steel1943: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 18:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use ((subst:Season's Greetings1)) to send this message