This is an archive of past discussions with User:BDD. 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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 template from the top of the article. pbp02:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey there BDD. Currently a move is being discussed for Shark Island Extermination Camp and it looks to have reached a weak consensus to move the page - at least to me it does, anyway - and it's now 11 days since it was re-listed. Can you/another admin take a look at it to see if it really has reached consensus and can be moved? FOARP (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not actually an admin, and the discussion looks too close for me to feel comfortable performing a non-admin close. You may want to post at WP:ANRFC to alert multiple admins of the situation. Good luck, BDD (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I noticed you delsorted this deletion discussion under People. Where a person is listed under Politicians, Actor etc. it is unnecessary to list under People as it just swamps that generic delsort. For example a Soldier would be listed under People & Military whereas a Track & Field athlete would be listed under Sportspeople. Therefore I have crossed out/struck the people delsort as it was unnecessary & removed it from here. Regards ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
No worries, I made a few sleep deprived slip ups with the new script, I accidentally sorted the article rather then the AfD. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, BDD. You have new messages at Talk:2012 Benghazi attack. Message added 20:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
The problem isn't with the information about his (loan) transfer to QPR. That's true enough, and someone will supply a citation. "January 3st," ok, probably just a typo. But the fake Redknapp quote? That's what I'm calling out as vandalism. I even searched for it, because sure, I can imagine Harry saying something like that. --BDD (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
This is not an index to Wikipedia articles, as none of the organisations listed have an article. Most or all can be assumed to fail the relevant notability guideline WP:ORG. Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:EL.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
I didn't create the article or anything, but I've overhauled it in response to your concerns. In particular, I've removed all the external links to individual breweries. If you still feel it runs afoul of WP:NOTDIR, you're welcome to take it to AfD, but keep in mind WP:NLISTITEM. --BDD (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the latter link -- that's helpful. And well done with the overhaul; as the whole list is cited to an external source, which I assume is reliable, I have no further problem with the page. – FayenaticLondon17:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, cleaning up that series is sort of on my long-term to-do list. But these prods (pun?) to action can be helpful. Personally, I think beer topics are one area where Wikipedia is surprisingly weak on coverage. --BDD (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. You're right; moving back is appropriate here, and I've already done it. I'm sure the move was made in good faith, but it shouldn't've been made undiscussed. --BDD (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
You state on the talk page, "Realistically, there are some regions of the world that just won't experience blizzards, but we can do better." and list a bunch of sources that you googled. Please read the article more closely and be aware that weather channel information is not appropriate for the Blizzard article. Gandydancer (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for carrying out the move of the Aviation in the New York metropolitan area article. As I noted in the original move request, and was noted by others supporting the move, the edit history now suffers from an improper cut-and-paste move as part of a claimed merger for a dodge to get around a previous move. I wonder if you might be able to do a hist merge if its not to much trouble. oknazevad (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. As you're one of those folks who contributed to the work title capitalization rules discussion over at WT:MoS but then seemed to tune out (and therefore – as opposed to the "MoS regulars" – probably didn't follow it any further), I just briefly wanted to point you towards my latest post there (beginning with "As there has been little progress"), which might well be the last overall: I'm phasing out, and since there hasn't been much input by other users lately, it's likely that over the next few days, the thread'll die (i.e., disappear into the archives) without there having been made any changes to the MoS. So I'd be much obliged if you took the time to stake your support for or opposition to my proposal (should I also have put an RfC tag there?) and – unless it's accepted (I'm not holding my breath...) – maybe even considered keeping the debate going. Thanks. (I'm aware of the unsolicited nature of this message, so if you feel molested by it, I apologize.) – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I think I said this at the very beginning of that discussion, but we need an RfC. The only thing that has kept me from proposing one is uncertainty about the new wording. If it were up to me, I'd strike "prepositions and coordinating conjunctions shorter than five letters" and replace it with "words shorter than four letters." I think this would avoid most of these awkward cases where our usage diverges from most other sources, and it would be much simpler than asking editors to identify constructs like coordinating conjunctions. This is difficult enough for native English speakers, and it's just another stumbling block for the non-native speakers we should be welcoming and encouraging. What do you think? --BDD (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree that overcomplicating things is always a danger, running the risk of deterring new users, but I think going with [prep] prop 2 – thereby identifying the few words not to capitalize – (and keeping the exceptions regarding phrasal verbs and stuff) wouldn't be more confusing than any "shorter than x letters" rules. Further and specifically, a "shorter than four letters" rule leads to, for example, renderings such as
The Englishman Who Went up a Hill But Came Down a Mountain,
Sure. I'd support that over the status quo. But that still leaves the problem of how to proceed. We could use my proposal, we could use yours, or we could present options. The main reason I don't want to present options is that that seems to muddle discussion. In recent RFCs regarding USPLACE and Ireland naming issues, those supporting the status quo had one clear option to argue, while proponents of change were split among several other options. If a reform fails in a straight yes-or-no vote, fine, I can live with that, but I don't want to see it derailed on procedural grounds. So where does that leave us? If you want to be bold and start an RfC with your proposal, go ahead. I'll give my support. The reason I think my proposal might be more successful is its simplicity—if you try to prescribe a list of words, editors may bicker over individual words' inclusion. And if any RfC fails, a second is unlikely to be successful soon after. --BDD (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I'd prefer my proposal over yours because I think it's actually more stable, less prone to bickering. Sure, the next Trek film's title might not include ... from ... or ... with ..., but there's still a ton of titles that would become "out-of-sync" with a "shorter than four letters" rule, in my view unavoidably leading to even more strife. It's cool that you'd give your support to what I suggest, I really appreciate that (somehow, one doesn't seem to often encounter encouragement on Wikipedia...), but I wouldn't even know how to initiate an RfC. Do you think I could just add some tag, so people could vote below my last post there? (where I bolded recommend) And frankly, after thinking and writing quite a lot about the subject recently, without being met with too much of a response and not finding a good style guide source for what looks to me to be the most established way of capitalizing work titles, I've grown frustrated and was kinda hoping I could pass on the torch to someone else and bow out. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey, that would be great! – but be aware that you might incur a curse by doing that...
"Does the list of words not to capitalize already exist somewhere?" (BDD) – IMDb has a list here (also, that link's already mentioned in the discussion; you'll find it if you do a Ctrl+f search with "Getting Started > Submission Guides > Title Formats"). However, they don't state where they themselves adopted that style from (it certainly is a lot older than that website, though – and obviously much more widespread and not limited to film titles). – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I could propose that. But IMDB gets sort of a bad rap around here. If we could point to any other reliable sources that use the same convention, that could be a big help. --BDD (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
In the discussion, I list some on- and offline publishing organs that use it. I don't know, methinks most people already agree it's the de-facto standard out there. If that is contended, maybe one could do something like taking ten work titles examples for every word in question and check each for their capitalization in the same one hundred respected, authoritative sources. But that would be quite some [and maybe futile] work. (By the way, I've gotten one support over at WT:MoS. Yay!) – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 09:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Bdd, Please move the article HMS Staunch back to HMS Staunch (1804). There were three HMS Staunches in the Royal Navy in the 19th Century, and possibly others in the 20th too. That there are currently no articles on these other Staunches or no disambiguation page for HMS Staunch does not justify your move. Your move just means that you are making unnecessary work for someone else, and perhaps creating a misleading implication. I am sure there are many other articles on naval vessels without a disambiguation page yet (e.g., HMS Grecian); that does not mean that the first article on one of these vessels should be titled HMS Grecian. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Is there an existing policy or guideline that ships should be pre-disambiguated? If so, I'll probably move it back. While some editors favor pre-disambiguation, we generally disambiguate only when necessary. If this is just a difference in opinion, RM would be the right forum for this. --BDD (talk) 19:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I see you've made a dab page. This doesn't change the fact, however, that we only have one article on a ship by that name. The current dab would qualify for G6 speedy deletion. But if you could make a stub out of one of the others, the whole issue could be resolved. --BDD (talk) 23:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi BDD, Wasn't me that made the DAB page, but my thanks to whoever did so. However, I find bizarre the notion that we should throw away information that other people have gathered. Even if there is currently only one blue link on the DAB page, and the rest are red, why would you want to throw that information away too? Surely providing information should have a higher priority than aesthetics. Someone looking for HMS Staunch might find it useful to know that there were several, even if all but one have no article at this time. Perhaps it might help the searcher pin down which one their grandfather served on and that it was a destroyer, and even better, perhaps to prepare an article. Also, I don't much care to be told that I need to write an article, even if only a stub, to prevent a page being what I would consider vandalized. This strikes me as as close to a form of extortion. "Nice little article you have there. It would be a shame if something happened to it." Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not trying to intimidate you or anything. If I had just come across that dab, I probably would've nominated it for speedy deletion. A dab that doesn't provide access to more than one article may be useful, but it still meets the criteria for speedy deletion. I'm not telling you you need to write an article, but I do want to let you know that the next time an uninvolved editor trying to apply policy to these pages comes along, you may find yourself complaining to him or her. So you might want to save yourself the trouble. I won't pursue the issue further. --BDD (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I reverted the move of the article, and created the ship list page. It is a WP:SETINDEX article, and not a dab page, and thus would not qualify under G6. ("A set index article is not a disambiguation page"). Pages like this are useful and in keeping with policy, just in case you come across instances like this again. Benea (talk) 08:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi.
Since you are an administrator and the discussion for the page move is closed. I think that the page should be moved to "Coimbatore International Airport". I tried to move the page myself but it did not give me permission to. Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Hang tight. I'm not an administrator—in the RM, I was just an uninvolved editor who closed discussion where consensus was clear. Per the instructions for non-admin closures of RMs, I've tagged Coimbatore International Airport for speedy deletion so Coimbatore Airport can be moved there. I or the deleting admin will follow through and perform any necessary cleanup after the move. It's not too lengthy a process; it should be completed within 12 hours or so. --BDD (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't, but WP:CSD#A7 does not apply to books: "This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works." JohnCD (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I did think of that, but the article said that while most of it was available at the website there were some "pages withheld to encourage the sales of the hardcopy." Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Participation: Out of 19 people who signed up for this blitz, 9 copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.
Progress report: During the six-day blitz, we removed over twenty articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the March drive in a few days! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Torchiest, BDD and Miniapolis.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mission (olive), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andalusian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I noticed that the only current RM that has been relisted more than once is Dennis and Gnasher → Dennis the Menace and Gnasher, but it has no responses, other than an unrelated comment about updating the logo. Per closing instructions there is no minimum response, and if there is no response, the RM is always closed, move if it conforms to guidelines, and no move if it does not. I know that the editor who relisted it the second time was unaware of this closing instruction...[1] By the way, we are making excellent progress in whittling down the backlog, and I am sure that you are responsible for much of this and deserve a barnstar for your efforts... Apteva (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, I can't take too much credit. I close one or two from the backlog a day where appropriate, and I try to get RMs "expiring" that day to prevent the backlog from expanding further. It seems more administrators are paying attention to RM. Miniapolis is a new administrator who has helped in this regard, and is better deserving of a barnstar than I am.
The documentation you pointed out to Tyrol5 ought to be better publicized. It's tempting to treat an empty RM as we would an empty AfD, but ultimately we still have the nominator in support, and it's fair to treat the request as a technical one. I wish RMs just attracted the levels of participation that AfD does, but until then, we work with what we have. --BDD (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
No worries, but then I will add the website as the ref footnote for that statement. It shouldn't really be unsupported. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Mmm, maybe not, the website doesn't really look WP:RS for such a statement either, better perhaps to just leave it unsourced. Hey ho. Thanks for the note. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't going to stop you, the main page of an official website used as a reference is only slightly better than using another Wikipedia article as a reference. I'm all for proper sourcing, especially for BLPs, but I think WP:COMMONSENSE dictates that readers don't need their hands held every step of the way. --BDD (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Well maybe one day there'll be a newspaper interview and someone will ask her about it. Then there'll be a source. So agree with you. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas".
Guide for participants
If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.
What this noticeboard is:
It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.
What this noticeboard is not:
It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.
Things to remember:
Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.
This is an archive of past discussions with User:BDD. 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.
