User talk:Bluegoblin7/Archive 51
|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.|
|« 1||Archive 51||39 »|
Hey, BG, when you revert vandalism that has profanity or similarly objectionable content, feel free to drop a line at WP:AN or on an admin's page to ask for the change to be hidden. I just did the one on World War II. Cheers! --Auntof6 (talk) 01:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- Definitely forgot that revdel was a thing! Thanks for the reminder, I'll be sure to raise anything on WP:AN in future. Thanks! :-) Goblin 14:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC) I ♥ Jersey!
We now have so many admins who are not really active that I've come round to thinking we need one or two more. At any rate, if you would like to come back on board I'd be happy to propose you. Regards, Mac. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- Wow, thanks for the offer. Certainly unexpected! For now, though, I must decline - I'm not sure how long I'm going to remain active for at the moment (A quiet period IRL has helped!) and it would not be of any assistance if I got the mop to only go inactive again. Additionally, it's clear I'm still a little rusty with things like QD criteria and functionality (See above), so probably best I ween myself back in to everything first too. Hope you understand my reasoning, but I'll certainly let you know when I feel that I'd be ready if you're happy with that? Kind regards, Goblin 13:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC) I ♥ The Rambling Man!
Hi Bleep. I just noticed GoblinBot4 has been down since January. Is there a reason for this (other than toolserver shutting down)? Do you have any intention of bringing it back? PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- I did reply on IRC, but just for the record the bot died at some point whilst I was inactive, so it wasn't a priority to fix. This happened at a similar time to the Toolserver being taken offline, so it wasn't a straightforward case of restarting as there's a need to find somewhere else suitable for hosting it (Labs is the most likely, but the feasibility needs checking). Chenzw and I will hopefully cross paths at some point so we can sit down and get it back online. :-) Goblin 01:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC) I ♥ Barras!
Ignore my revert of you....for some reason I thought you were archiving new stuff...not sure how I got my months mixed up lol. My server is currently down at home which is why its not been happening right on time, but luckily the parts for the new one should be here by the beginning of next week. :) Been good seeing you around again lately. -DJSasso (talk) 12:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Not a problem at all! Fingers crossed you get your server back up and running soon, although I can look into running an archival bot myself if that's of any use? Good to be back, although as I've said elsewhere don't know how long for at the moment! Real life and all that... Goblin 15:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC) I ♥ Barras!
Names, popular versus official
We went over this one re airports. I can't claim any great consensus, but here's my view: we have to state the official name. but don't have to use it as the title when a far more common name is in use by ordinary people. Many airports have been renamed for pubic relations reasons while people still use the old name. No-one, absolutely no-one, calls it "London Victoria Station". that's so artificial as to be laughable. I'm not a "places" editor, but I think it better reflects 'Simple' to use the common version. And we are not, definitely not, obliged to follow English wiki in this matter. The PR mania for renaming is a big pain for encylopedias and reference books. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- I don't recall participating in the airports discussion, so I can't relate to what's gone before, although I will make sure I look back and read up where necessary. However, in this instance (And for the other 'major' London terminals, which I will be going through over the next few weeks), I don't agree that renaming the article is following the PR mania but believe that the "full" name is simpler and appropriate for an encyclopedia. There are numerous other 'Victoria' stations across the UK (Manchester Victoria station, Southend Victoria station etc) and all are locally known as simply 'Victoria' - so why is there any difference for London? Additionally, I can't agree with your assertion that "absolutely no-one" calls it London Victoria - I know plenty of people that do refer to it as such (Along with London Paddington, London King's Cross, London Liverpool Street etc). I don't really have a particularly strong view either way, but in the interests of clean-up and standardisation I'd say that this would be the best option. Goblin 11:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC) I ♥ Jersey!
- Maybe it's not going to be an issue. However, we do often use the format 'Main word (disambig word)' in titles, so Victoria station (Manchester) would be the alternative. When one gets to airports there's no limit to the kind of absurdity: "John B Hackenbacker Jr. Copenhagen International Airport" [imaginary but not exaggerated example], where I prefer "Copenhagen airport"! Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think it will be - thankfully, as I'm sure you're aware, UK railway stations tend to have straightforward (or, at least, historically straightforward) names that rarely, if ever, change, and are almost always location-based (with exceptions, such as IBM railway station). I can see the reasoning for including the place name at the end of titles to disambig, although again in the instance of railway stations I think this would create more confusion and make things more complex than is otherwise necessary. With your example, I would agree that 'Copenhagen airport' would be far more appropriate than the full name. Goblin 13:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC) I ♥ The Rambling Man!
Since you moved the hook to the queue, I wanted to let you know: I commented out the DYK hook from Jennie Wade that is at Template:Did you know/Queue/3. The problem is that the hook (that she was the only civilian casualty at the Battle of Gettysburg) is in the lead of the article without citation, and is then never repeated in the body of the article. The circumstances of her death are cited, but the fact that she was the only casualty is not. Once that is fixed, someone can revert my commenting out of the hook. Only (talk) 13:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up, although as you note I was only clerking. I see that this issue is now "fixed", although I have returned the hook (and previous discussion) to the queue page as I feel something this "big" probably needs a proper discussion on the talk page, rather than a qucik glance through on talk pages. For future reference, if hooks are 'contested' after they have been moved to a queue they should be returned to the nominations page - with the original discussion if possible - rather than commented out. It's a bit more transparent and makes it harder to get missed. :) Goblin 20:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC) I ♥ Auntof6!