Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:46, 31 January 2015

This is Edokter's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 30 days

If you leave me a message, I will respond here.

Question at Village Pump

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#AfC_Invite_Template_Questions

Doctor Who episodes

A working version of the use of sublists in List of Doctor Who serials is now viewable in my sandbox. Edits have included conforming table widths, all tables using two decimals for viewership, using one source for all viewership/AI sources instead of a mess of multiple, removing minisodes (these can be added to Other Stories, given that they're not actual episode that contribute to the television series), no double lines after each table, among others (available in the sandbox history). Your thoughts? AlexTheWhovian (talk) 04:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

That looks great! But I thought the whole point was to transclude the series tables from their respective pages? Or are you planning to makes these changes there? -- ] {{talk}} 09:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Aye, exactly. The edits I've done to the tables in my sandbox, I'll put these modifications across to the respective series pages (adding the summaries back in), then transclude the series table to the TV series list. So, all good to proceed? AlexTheWhovian (talk) 09:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead. -- ] {{talk}} 09:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Civil service

• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Civil_service&curid=160793&diff=640514517&oldid=640506120

(→‎See also: Fix hacky dovs, list layout and bypass redirects)

Thanks for drawing my attention to the nocolbreak class. What makes it less "hacky" than display:inline-block;..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Inline-block's pupose to to display a block element inline. It only worked because the lists inside it were block element too. -- ] {{talk}} 19:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I've made a note of nocolbreak. I'm sorry to see that you appear set against the point of "Start/End div col" and I'm wondering what you make of . Sardanaphalus (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I have to echo Redrose64's comments. The use of comment markers should be minimal. Although WediaWiki strips these markers, they are technically not allowed inside HTML tags, but are considered allowable (sparingly) inside parser functions. -- ] {{talk}} 23:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Please do not pre-empt the outcome of an "XfD" discussion

• Special:Contributions/Edokter around 09:40 to 10:10 today

Please do not pre-empt/second-guess/presume the outcome of a " for discussion" discussion by making edits such as these. At least one of them also involved removals that were not addressed in the edit summary. I have requested that Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 1#Template:Start div col is closed as subverted and will now restore the pages these edits have affected.

Sardanaphalus (talk) 12:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I am merely preparing for a potential outcome. You reverting everything is quite disruptive, so I will roll back. -- ] {{talk}} 15:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Edokter, contrary to your assertion, it is you who is edit warring. May I suggest, quite strongly, that you desist? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I've now reverted your changes. Please wait for the RfD outcome. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the edit war. -- ] {{talk}} 09:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

ANI-notice

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Sardanaphalus (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Module talk:Episode list

Regarding your edit summary on this edit, I certainly was not "abusing" the template. In fact, I wasn't even calling for comments! If you read the entire thread, you'll see that Technical 13 invited me to reactivate my request once I'd fully tested my proposed change in the sandbox. I did so, and was merely reactivating the request per Technical 13's instruction.

While I readily admit that my proposed fix is not the most elegant solution, my last comment was, "...unless somebody else chimes in with a better proposal." Well, two weeks passed and nobody chimed in. Therefore, I was ready to press ahead with implementation of my proposed change. That is why I reactivated the request—to catch the attention of somebody who can help me with that (as I lack the proper permissions).

Again, I was not calling for comments. I would appreciate if you would assume good faith in the future. Thanks, and happy editing. – voidxor  07:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

It was still used improperly... The protected edit request is there to call an admin (or template editor) handling these requests to make one straight edit, meaning it must be accompanied by a chunk of ready-to-paste code. If there is any discussion still pending, or code missing, it should not be used. -- ] {{talk}} 08:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Edokter, I'll note that tested code in the sandbox counts as "accompanied by a chunk of ready-to-paste code". I've re-enabled the request because it looks like there is consensus in that discussion that the extra space in some situations is preferable to no space in others. I'd implement it myself as a  Template editor except that Lua makes me uncomfortable and I'd rather let one of our very talented Lua coders do it. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} 13:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Survey

Hello again & Happy New Year.

Before the need forces me to "go formal", I'm asking a few folks ahead of time (you're the first actually) whom I've come to consider 'rather capable' & 'technically savvy' while I've been 'lurking about' Misplaced Pages to stop by Wikisource and report your findings to the points outlined in a quick and easy survey - well quick and easy if you get past my opening blatherings that is.

We're looking to see if further "development" is worth pursuing (even possible?) if a high enough percentage of contributors give us all positive results. Explanation, details, links, etc. all start here.

Thanks in advance -- pass this on to whomever you feel can build upon what I hope you found to be at least an interesting bit of new wiki-info if not an intriguing possibility to build upon somehow. George Orwell III (talk) 12:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Template edit affects hundreds of articles, but nobody cares. Thank you. AussieLegend (✉) 16:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Help

Hi Edokter the cite button on right of RefToolbar (2.0b), is not working since last few days at Odia WP (or.wikipedia.org). Please help to fix the cite button bug. Thank you. --Mrutyunjaya Kar (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't help you here. There have been no changes in our code for months, so the problem appears to be caused on or.wikipedia.org. Has common.js been edits there lately? -- ] {{talk}} 18:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

common.js was last edited on 13 October 2014.--Mrutyunjaya Kar (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no clue. Perhaps asking on Misplaced Pages talk:RefToolbar may help. -- ] {{talk}} 19:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yesterday the bug was fixed. The culprit was a deprecated function live() which was finally removed a few weeks ago.--Mrutyunjaya Kar (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Campaighnbox

Here. Sardanaphalus (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

template talkpage did not help

it is just a few replies and where the discussion stopped 7 days ago without any results and the user talkpages nothing was being done so can anyone please do something about the problem that the result bars and seperated to far vertically, if i knew how to do it myself i would but i cant so am asking you or someone else to help Dannis243 (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

If this is about Template talk:Infobox political party, I posted a comment there to indicate where the problem is. -- ] {{talk}} 16:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Testing section link template

§ To do should link to User:Edokter#To do. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 13:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't, because that section is not on my talk page, but my user page. -- ] {{talk}} 13:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

q tag revisited

I’m afraid much of my responses to you at WT:WHO was more personal in nature than strictly on-topic. But I stand by it all. If no one (including yourself) took action on actually getting titles to use <q>...</q>, I was ready to remove the quotes from those DW articles to remedy this isolated inconsistency. If it becomes widespread (even if it’s only you spreading it), that excuse for removing them goes away, and it would spur some actual discussion. But leaving it as is means there’s no legitimate reason for the quotes to be on those few pages, meaning they don’t belong. So the way I see it, you’re either in or out, either you support and promote the practice—on more than a dozen articles—or you waive any right to object to those few getting reverted to standard. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Replied at WT:WHO. -- ] {{talk}} 09:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I was making suggestions, not demands. If you’re content to edit a TV season’s worth of articles and then take no further action for your cause, that’s your call. That kind of hands-off approach just doesn’t seem like any kind of way to garner community support for anything. All I meant by my comment here was, It just doesn’t seem like it matters to you, or else I’d think you’d be doing more about it. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

RFC hatnote

I believe I explained the idea in my edit summary, but since those articles could potentially be edited at any time to render the hatnote’s claim untrue, a timestamp seems necessary. If you’d prefer, you could link to the revisions that introduced the quote tags instead of pointing people to the latest revisions. This way just seemed simpler. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

This is rediculous... will you please remove that lie? They have been there for over six months; you make it sound like they have just been added. -- ] {{talk}} 00:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

It’s not a lie. At that time, the tags were present in all twelve articles. Do you have an alternative solution? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I notice you reverted me again. There is no guarantee that those quotes will be there if someone goes looking. So what’s your solution? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I’ve attempted to address your concerns by also mentioning that they’ve been there for several months. Is this acceptable? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I have been trying to discuss this with you and to modify my additions based on your objections. Please do the same rather than simply reverting every single one of my attempts. Help me build a consensus about this rather than treating this like a WP:BATTLEGROUND. You reverted my last effort (and self-reverted when, I assume, you realized it was your third revert) and did not discuss it at all. What was wrong with that one? How can we fix it? What wording could we use instead of “as of” (which, you’re right, does imply a starting time)? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

No feedback? So can I assume my latest revision (something like, “at the time of this writing, those articles use tags and have for months”) is acceptable? I hope so. If it’s not, then please give some constructive criticism or make your own revisions. Thanks. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

My last revert was too hasty and I reverted myself. The current wording is OK. -- ] {{talk}} 21:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Awesome. It just seems a bit lengthy to me now. Any suggestions? Or is that just me? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

No, it's fine. -- ] {{talk}} 21:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Consensus to follow consensus

Also, please stop demanding consensus for their removal, as you did here. I addressed this earlier in that discussion. Since there is no consensus for them and never has been, you would need to obtain a consensus to keep them, not to remove them. I agreed to leave them be during the RFC, but there’s nothing to prevent any other editor from removing them, so if someone removes them and you want to revert, get consensus first. I’m not arguing that they should be removed; I’m just trying to get it through to you that they could be removed. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I am now thoroughly sick of this. STOP threatening to remove them. They ahve been there for six months! THAT MEANS REMOVAL REQUIRES CONSENSUS! If you remove them I will revert! -- ] {{talk}} 00:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Once again… I am not threatening to remove them. I agreed to leave them alone. And that is still not how consensus works. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

You keep arguing about it... that is almost the same! If you are not going to remove them, then why keep argueing about it? -- ] {{talk}} 00:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote. I explained why already. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I can only see that one way; you still wan them gone (even though you agree with the quotes). If you agreed to let them stay, then let it rest. It is making me very uncomfortable. -- ] {{talk}} 00:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I don’t want them gone. I want them perpetuated, and I want consensus to be behind that. There isn’t and they haven’t been. The point I’ve been trying to make is that if anyone else wants them gone, then they’re gone, regardless of what you or I want. They’d have a right to remove them, and you or I wouldn’t really have a right to revert—not even if there were a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS for them, —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

And for the umpthiest time... I DISAGREE. The fact that they have been up for six months (and noting reverts were rare), constitutes consensus. So stop agruing for the deletionists. -- ] {{talk}} 09:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

No. It implies a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. And you’ve been demanding a local consensus to remove your tags because you think a local WP:NOCONSENSUS means you get to ignore overall consensus. So yes, we disagree, but at a fundamental level; you disagree with policy. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 12:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Your reverts

I ended the RFC (per WP:RFC) because interest in the discussion had died; the only participants in the past week have been the two of us, who have been there since before there was an RFC (which was started well over 30 days ago). If you believe that I wasn’t allowed to close it, please review WP:CLOSE; non-admins are allowed to even formally close discussions, and requesting formal closure is discouraged if the outcome is obvious. If you disagree with my closing rationale (or with my previous sentence), then please take it up at WP:AN per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE rather than taking it upon yourself to revert it.

In short: Stop reverting my edits simply because you disagree with them. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be under some misguided assumption that policy is somehow optional for you. Let me be very clear: it is not. Policy is there to guide disagreeing parties, just like this one. You do not get to unilaterally declare the discussion closed. You are correct that I do not agree with your closure, which is exactly why you should await a third party, or request closure pe WP:RFC. -- ] {{talk}} 19:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

What “policy” do you believe I’m violating? You haven’t cited any. WP:RFC isn’t even an essay page. WP:CLOSE is at least an information page, and you seem to think it’s optional for you—I explicitly asked you to abide by it, and you refused. Do you think that if you don’t revert an unacceptable close, then no one else will? Then maybe it was only unacceptable to you. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-03

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent software changes

• Rotated PDF files in landscape format used to show too small. They will now display correctly. You may need to purge older files.
• You can now use the {{!}} magic word instead of Template:!. Many wikis used the template to create a pipe (|) in tables and templates. You can delete the template.

Software changes this week

• The new version of MediaWiki (1.25wmf14) has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since January 7. It will be on non-Misplaced Pages wikis from January 13. It will be on all Wikipedias from January 14 (calendar).
• A bug in VisualEditor sometimes added a ☀ (Sun) character. This is now fixed.
• The search and replace tool in VisualEditor is now much faster in long pages.
• The TemplateData editor now uses the same design as VisualEditor.
• The thumb option is now shown in your language in the help of the classic editor toolbar.

Future changes

• You can sign up to answer questions from designers. It will help them make editing easier.

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

16:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Div col

• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template_talk:Div_col&oldid=642509920&diff=prev

(Not your call. Take it to his talk page.)

What makes it "your" call, then? Sardanaphalus (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary. The chance of anyone else replying is zero. Redrose has already already expressed that he is ignoring the discussion. And one of my jobs is to prevent discussions from dragging on ad infinitum. The matter is closed, move on. -- ] {{talk}} 22:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Where, before your action today<aside>or on January 7</aside> did Redrose express his decision to ignore the discussion..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Here. -- ] {{talk}} 22:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I concur with Edokter. I monitored the discussion, but saw no need to interject. Please step away from the horse. --  Gadget850 00:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Where, before your action today/yesterday<aside>or on January 7</aside> did Redrose express his decision to ignore the discussion..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I already answered that. I you can't bother to check the timestamps, I'm not going to continue this discussion either. -- ] {{talk}} 09:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• I think you'll find that, on both occasions, Redrose had not indicated that he had decided to ignore the discussion before you took your action. It's okay to make a mistake. Sardanaphalus (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Bulleted list/doc

• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template%3ABulleted_list%2Fdoc&diff=642669098&oldid=642668809

(Final straw...)

Unlike yourself, I acted constructively and removed the Div-col columns. If the formatting available here is losing your straw, please campaign elsewhere to have it removed, not stalk people using it to improve this computing project's encyclopedia's presentation. Sardanaphalus (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Doctor Who Series 9 - Block One

Hello, my (and many other users) edits to this Doctor Who page over the past few days have been continuously reverted. It was confirmed last week by Doctor Who Magazine that Block One of filming consisted of episodes 3 and 4 (I happen to have the magazine myself and know this to be true). This information was fully sourced and nobody seemed to have a problem with it being included in the page. Yet on Wednesday, it was confirmed that Toby Whithouse, Daniel O'Hara and Derek Ritchie would be respectively writing, directing and producing this production block. We know (as stated by the BBC) that the episodes in Block One are written by Whithouse. We know that Block One is episodes 3 and 4 from DWM. Therefore Toby Whithouse is writing episodes 3 and 4. Is there something that I've missed or does this make complete sense? --86.134.246.132 (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You may want to read WP:SYNTH, which states you cannot take information from two different sources and combine them to reach a new conclusion. I don't ahve a copy of DHM at hand so so I tagged ot for confirmation to see if it passes SYNTH. -- ] {{talk}} 21:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Alright I suppose this does make sense, thanks. Although surely both things cancel each other out? By this WP:SYNTH thing we can have either piece of information in the production box. It would still be correct if Whithouse, O'Hara and Ritchie were included in the Block 1 row without the note of "Episode 3 and 4", and yet it would still be correct if the info was reversed (i.e if "Episode 3 and 4" were listed without mentioning the production staff) as it is at this current moment in time. --86.134.246.132 (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Edokter and 86.134.246.132 I think Edokter's interpretation of synth may be a bit too strong. Essentially Synth is a prohibition against doing OR and one important principle about OR is: Misplaced Pages:No_original_research#Routine_calculations "routine calculations do not count as OR" by routine calculations I would definitely expect basic minor logical inferencing as well as numerical calculations. If I'm understanding this that is the kind of synth going on here and if that is the case I don't think its OR or prohibited by synth. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 02:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't stating it was synth... I just liked some confirmation that others would find it acceptable. -- ] {{talk}} 20:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Gap spacing on hatnotes

Hello, I don't know if this is the right place, but just today I noticed that there is no longer a "gap" between two hatnotes. I use Monobook and have found nothing on WP:VPT or any recent changes to MediaWiki:Monobook.css or Template:Hatnote, so it may just be something on my end. If it is indeed on my end, is there any CSS that I can use to make it look back to the same? hbdragon88 (talk) 05:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I've explained what happened at Template talk:Hatnote#Hatnote issue. -- ] {{talk}} 08:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Vector-bullet-icon.svg

Hi the size of the bullet for vector in SVG needs to be bigger please. Please see http://simple-random-wikisaur.tk/index.php/Special:SpecialPages for size that it currently is in svg. http://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Vector-bullet-icon.svg 86.173.52.112 (talk) 12:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I answered on Phabricator:T37338. -- ] {{talk}} 15:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Slitheen

Redundant in that they were described as Raxacoricofallapatorians from Raxacoricofallapatorius. Britmax (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Britmax, the first is the species, the second is the planet. They sound alike, but that does not make it redundant. -- ] {{talk}} 18:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

You're right. Repetition switch on a hair trigger. Thanks for that. Britmax (talk) 11:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

“The Doctor” objections

I can’t help wondering, have you been objecting to the The Doctor redirect simply because of the way it was proposed, without investigating for yourself whether or not it had any merit? Because your objections seemed to be based on the fact that evidence wasn’t provided, not that there wasn’t any out there. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I am opposed in principle. One of my objections is that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC primarily deals with article naming, and which article can forego the (disambiguation) part in their title. Since Doctor (Doctor Who) already is disambiuated, it has no claim of primacy to begin with. And if it is made the primary topic, Doctor (Doctor Who) would have to be renamed, as does Doctor (to Doctor (disambiguation)), and all that to keep navigation consistent. So you see that this porposal has more consequences then a simple redirect. -- ] {{talk}} 23:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

If renaming were necessary, then Doctor (Doctor Who) would have to be renamed to The Doctor (which I would support), and the disambiguation page Doctor would remain at Doctor since there’s no conflict there and it still wouldn’t have a primary topic. But I’m not aware of any broad consensus against redirecting to primary topics; WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT advises to do exactly that. Could you point me in the right direction? Thanks. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The whole discussion is to determine if the Doctor is the primary topic. And your naming scheme introduce exactly the inconsistency I am talkiing about. "The Doctor" is not allowed per WP:TITLEFORMAT, as article names may not start with a definite article unless they are part part of a proper title (name of a work). -- ] {{talk}} 09:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

If I’m not mistaken, you’ve only addressed your own hypothetical renaming here. TITLEFORMAT doesn’t apply to redirects, and there’s no policy-based need to rename Doctor either way. So… I think that only leaves the argument that the Doctor is not primary? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 10:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

You are mistaken... if Doctor (Doctor Who) would be made primary, it would have to be moved to Doctor, and where does that leave the disambiguation page and its associated redirects? -- ] {{talk}} 11:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

If it were determined to be primary for “The Doctor,” then why should it be moved to “Doctor”? If articles were required to be at each title for which they are primary, we’d have a lot of duplicates instead of redirects; sometimes a subject has more than one name for which it is primary (e.g., Alecia Beth Moore is the primary topic for her full name, for P!nk, and for Pink (singer) ), or sometimes the WP:NATURAL title is unavailable for some reason (e.g., Joker (comics). —174.141.182.82 (talk) 12:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

(ec) The whole concept of a primary topic is that an article for a primary topic needs no disambiguation. Remember that the whole 'primary' concept stems from article naming policy. Redirects are secondary and are only there to aid navigation. -- ] {{talk}} 12:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Except in the last case I mention. Also, again, WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT is a thing that exists. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 12:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's continue this at the RfC. -- ] {{talk}} 16:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Your move. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)