User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 79

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Sphilbrick. 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.

Archive 75

←

Archive 77

→

Administrators' newsletter – June 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).

Administrator changes

Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn

ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

An RfC proposing an off-wiki LTA database has been closed. The proposal was broadly supported, with further discussion required regarding what to do with the existing LTA database and defining access requirements. Such a tool/database formed part of the Community health initiative's successful grant proposal.
Some clarifications have been made to the community banning and unblocking policies that effectively sync them with current practice. Specifically, the community has reached a consensus that when blocking a user at WP:AN or WP:ANI, it is considered a "community sanction", and administrators cannot unblock unilaterally if the user has not successfully appealed the sanction to the community.
An RfC regarding the bot policy has closed with changes to the section describing restrictions on cosmetic changes.

Technical news

Users will soon be able to blacklist specific users from sending them notifications.

Miscellaneous

Following the 2017 elections, the new members of the Board of Trustees include Raystorm, Pundit and Doc James. They will serve three-year terms.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

From AN - F5 bot

You commented that someone is working on a bot to automate this - any idea who? It's something that I agree is mind-numbing and I'd have some time coming up to work on a bot. But if someone's already working on it then I'll leave it to them.

Are there any cases where orphaned old versions of non-free files shouldn't be deleted? I know I've seen a few odd ones when working through them - files where the new version is something completely different to the old version, or where the new version is larger than the old version - but in those cases I guess there still isn't a problem deleting the old version.

I might drop the BAG a line about this as well, when I get a chance. GoldenRing (talk) 09:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

GoldenRing See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval#RonBot --S Philbrick (Talk) 12:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Moves questioned

I'm not trying to move inappropriate content into mainspace, and I'm not worried about having my moves reviewed. After been run up the ANi flagpole for allegedly trying to delete too much, as well as being taken to ANi for moving stale content to AfC (with others assuming that is a backdoor way to delete), it is possible I'm erroring too heavily on preserving content. Would you be willing to go through my move log for the last month and identify any pages that are seriously unsuitable for mainspace in their present form? Perhaps any discovered could be sent to Draft or AfD? I'd appreciate that and I'll refrain from any more moves until the review is over. Legacypac (talk) 00:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Legacypac There are a number of editors whose name I recognize as being long time contributors. I definitely recognize your name although I apologize in advance if we've had material interactions in the past; I don't recall any. That said, I was surprised at what I read about you recently as it did not fit in with what little I thought I knew about you. It may be that such a review is warranted and it may well be that such a review would be down to your benefit. I'm reticent to overcommit at the moment. In a mildly parallel situation, an editor I have seen around a lot is the subject of a CCI. That requires individual review of almost 1000 edits, and at the moment I'm the only one working on it. I'm also trying to chip away at a multiple month backlog at OTRS so I'm happy to poke around and look at some other issues I'm not prepared to take on a major task.

That said, I urge you to take a very deep breath. I can fully imagine that an editor trying hard to contribute to this project will be less than pleased to be accused of being part of the problem as opposed to part of the solution but I'll tell you frankly that your reaction is at the moment is not helping. Please take a very deep breath, and show a willingness to resolve a situation which some respected editors view as problematic.--S Philbrick (Talk) 01:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I asked you because you made the negative comments on ANi and because I figure you can be impartial. There are not many pages to check and all have been through NPP. One got deleted as a copyvio - (I missed that my bad) but the others are as good as your typical new article. Would you be willing to ask another admin to do a check and shut down the flogging at ANi? Legacypac (talk) 01:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty concerned that the allegations of putting unsourced BLP in mainspace are being treated as fact but are fiction. The racecar driver was sourced to her webpage, but clearly could have been sourced better. I've fixed that in the normal course. The author page was sourced to her extensive website and an external source in german at the time of the move. Therefore neither had no sources as is being claimed. People at ANi love to jump on a band wagon and whip up nonsense. I'm about to quit wikipedia over this again. Legacypac (talk) 09:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is what concerns me. I think it is good practice to include a link to an official site in an article, but in terms of referencing it counts for zero. Nothing. References are supposed to be published independent sources. That doesn't remotely count. I can forgive a newbie for missing this, but you have far too much experience to be making this mistake, and I am troubled that you are defending it, rather than saying, "in retrospect, it is clear that move was premature". Surely you are aware that we require new BLP articles to have at least one source. If you think an external link to an official site qualifies, well, that really troubles me.

I will offer the following. Beyond My Ken made the excellent point that you haven't been previously warned about this issue. (I see some claims you have been warned about some issues in the past but I haven't checked to see if it's this exact issue.) A move ban is a relatively minor issue as it doesn't prevent you from working to improve any article but I'd support making the ban temporary in light of the lack of a prior specific warning. (It's hard to say with this is going to go right now; the thread seems to have turned toward Godsey.)

If someone does a review, and it turns out there's only one or two examples of moving unsourced material into mainspace I'd be happy to modify my position to simply a warning.--S Philbrick (Talk) 12:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

FYI, not just new BLPs: WT:BLPPROD#RfC: Remove the grandfather clause?. --Izno (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Izno Thanks, I had missed that. Good decision.--S Philbrick (Talk) 13:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Deleted draft page for ftrack

Hi Sphilbrick, I'd like to look at the drafted page from a while back that was deleted because of inactivity. Any tips for it to become published would be appreciated.

Thanks Blackeye88 (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Blackeye88 You didn't identify the page so I'm not quite sure what you are talking about but in general the best place to get tips for improvement is the teahouse.--S Philbrick (Talk) 15:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Heads up...

Sphilbrick, just a heads up at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Corkythehornetfan: any article that says "List of abc people" was copied from the main university/college article. They were getting too long and I moved it to a separate page and broke it up into sections. I don't think I did much editing other than copying it, so any violations would've been before my edit. If I did make any violations in those lists, it was pure accident. Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 22:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm running out to a meeting - will look into this in the morning. (Maybe this evening, but probably not.)--S Philbrick (Talk) 22:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 22

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 22, April-May 2017

New and expanded research accounts
Global branches update
Spotlight: OCLC Partnership
Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

M.J. Murdock Charitable Trust

Would you mind handling the rev del on this quickly? I'm probably going to be sending it to AfD within the hour, and prefer for the copyvios to be hidden before I do that. Thanks! TonyBallioni (talk) 22:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Done @TonyBallioni: --S Philbrick (Talk) 22:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Michael Robert Blakey

Why did you delete my draft page for Michael Robert Blakey, it was close to being accepted? ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobiastan (talk • contribs) 12:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tobiastan: It was deleted as a G 13 which means it hadn't been edited by anyone for over six months. If you would like to continue working on it you just have to ask.--S Philbrick (Talk) 13:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Please let me edit it, there are two new articles talking about Blakey in depth. Tobias Tan (talk) 04:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tobiastan: Restored Draft:Michael Robert Blakey--S Philbrick (Talk) 13:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Drug packaging

You recently reverted several sections of additions to the pharmaceutical packaging article. Your reference did not indicate what specific wording you object to. Please be specific and I will try to make any corrections. I am not aware of any copywrite violations. Pkgx (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Pkgx: If you look at the article history You will see that I identified the source of the copied material in the edit summary. Specifically some of the material was copied from the following site --S Philbrick (Talk) 14:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

This was not a valid link. Please try again. Also, you do not need to delete ALL of the valid edits if you only have an issue with one part. Pkgx (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Link fixed. The way rollback works is that all consecutive edits by the same editor are reverted at once. Yes, on occasion, that means some valid edits are swept up at the same time.--S Philbrick (Talk) 14:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

This an undated very general report/article/ publication with no indication of copywrite status. What is this? More important is that you have not identified any specific words or wording in my Wikipedia edit that you disagree with. You must be specific for me to make a reply. At this point, I do to know what you are saying. Pkgx (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Pkgx: If I correctly understood some comments I read, you are interested in contributing to Wikipedia articles about packaging. We need more editors. We don't seem to have a shortage of editors interested in writing about marginal garage bands or Mideast conflicts but editors interested in contributing to packaging issues are thin on the ground. So my hope is that I can be positive about how you can contribute.

I usually start my day by searching for copyright issues. I typically handle a dozen or so each day which are, sadly, only a small portion of the total copyright issues arising each day. It is clear to me that a number of editors, especially new editors are not fully versed on some copyright issues. You mentioned that you did not see a copyright notice on the material I linked. That is not the test. As a general assumption, you should assume that anything you find written anywhere is almost certainly subject to copyright, unless the content explicitly has a notice identifying an acceptable free license. There are exceptions, of course, for example material created by the federal government under certain circumstances is automatically public domain, and material written before 1923 in the US is in public domain. However, while there was a time that material had to have an explicit copyright notice in order to be subject to copyright that time is long past. When I'm doing copyright work I'd search for notices but I don't search for copyright notices I search for free license notices. If I don't find a free license it is almost certainly subject to copyright.

Even in cases where material is public domain, it is rarely appropriate to use as is because it may not be written in encyclopedic style. And even when it is in encyclopedic style and in public domain, we still require adequate referencing so that readers can know where the material was found. It is a best practice to rewrite in your own words, with the rare exception that short quotes set off in quote blocks or quotation marks might be appropriate to illustrate a point with the deliberate intention of using the original words.--S Philbrick (Talk) 20:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment but this does not really answer my question. You have not identified any specific words or wording in my Wikipedia edit that you disagree with. You must be specific for me to make a reply. At this point, I do to know what you are saying.

The material you referenced contained only general overviews of Indian packaging; I had not seen it prior to your comments. The Wikipedia article on Pharmaceutical Packaging is also a general overview of drug packaging. I could find several texts and many journal articles which also discuss this; so far, only a few have been cited. None have been copied but I would expect that the the choice of some terminology would be similar. Standard or commonly used terminology has been in use here for several decades.

Without any specific direction from you, I do not know how else to respond. Pkgx (talk) 21:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Over the past year or so, I've handle 2436 incidents as part of copy patrol. Roughly 1/3 are closed as not being an issue and roughly 2/3 or about 1600 resulted in a rollback. In each case I identified the URL of the copied material. You are literally the first editor to complain that the identification of the URL was not specific enough. Color me puzzled. You are the one that copied the material — surely you know what you copied. You indicated that you don't know how to respond. I'm not asking you to respond. I'm asking you to continue as an editor and write material in your own words. That is all.--S Philbrick (Talk) 21:40, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

You are accusing me of doing something but you refuse to tell me what it is. I edit in good faith. Either identify what specific word or words you are in a tizzy about or let me continue. Pkgx (talk) 22:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

You are blowing this way out of proportion. I'm not in a tizzy about anything. I accept that you editing good faith. I haven't accused you of doing anything. I reverted the sequence of edits, identified by potentially being a copyright issue. I identified the source in the edit summary. This is something I do a dozen times a day. If you'd like to track down exactly what is in the URL I cited and compared to the edit you made be my guest. We take copyright issues very seriously but we accept that many people inadvertently copy material. If it isn't repeated multiple times it's no big deal just move on. I try to provide you with some useful advice that you are trying to turn this into a big deal. It isn't. If you don't understand how copyright works, I'd be happy to point you to some information. If you feel comfortable you understand how it works, then go ahead and just edit--S Philbrick (Talk) 23:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. Yes Wikipedia needs to take care about copyright issues. In this case, there was a false positive signal somehow; nothing was copied. So lets move on. I will continue to use my material in edits to pharmaceutical packaging and will also add a couple of more citations.Pkgx (talk) 11:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out copyright issue with my contribution "Democratic development in Hong Kong"

Hi, thanks for pointing out that I may have infringed the copyright of Mr. Bowring from the South China Morning post when I mostly copy and paste his article to the Wiki entry. As for this topic, I found that the historical past of the democratic development of Hong Kong started actually much earlier than depicted in this article I tried to contribute to it. Mr. Bowrings Article (who by the way I know personally) as he is married to a Hong Kong Civic Party member and Pan Democratic lawmaker, who I happen to know. All I wanted is to fill the gab and add historical facts to this Wiki Article Democratic development in Hong Kong and it was also very too short mentioned the role the UK Government played regarding to Democracy in Hong Kong. Why they didn't give Hong Kong Democracy and why today many blame mostly the British for todays Hong Kong people fight for Democracy. Please have another review and inform me if anything is still not ok.

@Formulaguide: You are welcome to contribute to the article, but the information you add, while it should be sourced to reliable sources should be written in your own words.--S Philbrick (Talk) 16:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Utopia ep.jpg

You have twice removed the {{subst:orfurrev}} tag without deleting the old revision. Why? --Stefan2 (talk) 20:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I use "An alternative version of Legoktm's tool is available from User:B/rescaledsidebar.js," (Category:Non-free_files_with_orphaned_versions_more_than_7_days_old) but I just tried it and it failed. Not sure why.--S Philbrick (Talk) 20:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Davis Hospital and Medical Center

Do you mind me restoring this article? Technically, G8 did not apply since there have been non-redirect revisions but the redirect you saw was created by DGG changing an article to a redirect without checking the target. So I'd like to restore it and redirect it to the correct target, Iasis Healthcare. Regards So Why 18:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Color me confused. I looked at the article and I'll reproduce the entire content below:

REDIRECT IASIS Corporation

However, I see that you aren't asking me to restore it, you're providing a courtesy, because you'd like to restore it. Go ahead. (And no need to explain what's going on, while I'm confused I can live with that, and I trust your judgment.)--S Philbrick (Talk) 18:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, I think I now see what the problem was.--S Philbrick (Talk) 18:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I had declined the speedy since it's part of a notable chain and DGG probably tried to WP:ATD-R it and didn't notice the piped link. Ah well, thanks for restoring it yourself, I fixed it as you probably noticed. Regards So Why 19:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Glad it is all fixed.--S Philbrick (Talk) 19:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Maqsudul Alam

Hi. I don't understand why my edit edit is gone. I added the references. The nature link was used to reference Dr. Alam's work. Sunny.geb.sust (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@Sunny.geb.sust: The main issue is that you copied material from this source which appears to be subject to full copyright.--S Philbrick (Talk) 13:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I got some idea from that news. If it needs further modification, I will do that. But removing the whole edit leads the page to a desert. I didn't copy the whole news from nature and paste it here. I just extracted what Dr. Alam said and why he carried out the work. Why don't you suggest how to improve the representation of partial data from nature. Thanks. Sunny.geb.sust (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, you didn't just "get ideas from that news" you copied large sections. That's not permissible. Feel free to start over, but make sure to write content in your own words. Don't copy it and make some minor changes, read it put it aside and then write the contents in your own words. You may need to refer back to the original text in case terms of art are important and relevant, and of course, you need to include references, but you cannot just copy or even lightly paraphrase.--S Philbrick (Talk) 13:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Housesimple

Sorry to bother you again but can you explain to me how that article's content met G11? It looks like Jimfbleak forgot to check the history before tagging and you forgot to check it before deleting. Regards So Why 14:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Seriously? I restored it, but I don't expect it to last.--S Philbrick (Talk) 15:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

It should last, I added a bunch of sources and have begun to expand it. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 18:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Renamed-to-commons images deleted instead of replaced

I noticed a bunch of your recent file deletions that triggered ImageRemovalBot to delete them from the articles where they were used. The images themselves were not violations, just CSD F8 with a different name on commons, so the articles using them should have been updated to use their commons filename. As example, File:Newton area law derivation.gif was deleted from Angular momentum instead of being replaced there by (according to your deletion edit-summary) File:قانون المساحات.gif. Not sure what your workflow is, whether there is a bug in Magog the Ogre's script or somesuch. DMacks (talk) 21:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

My workflow is to use Magog the Ogre's script. I thought it only did files where the names were the same.

I'll try to check with Magog. although I can't at the moment.--S Philbrick (Talk) 22:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@DMacks: To further clarify, I used this tool. It does check to ensure that the file names are the same, but I had thought prior to today, that it onlty delivered files in which the names did match.

I now see that the list includes some files where the names do not match.

I have restored:

Last one, I think:

File:Minculturenewlogo.jpg--S Philbrick (Talk) 23:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Still need to undo their removal from the articles? And @Magog the Ogre: you've now re-deleted these (which likely seemed reasonable because "not in use", given the other problem). DMacks (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@DMacks: @Magog the Ogre: I have helped out with deletions of files with the same file was in Wikipedia in Commons in the past although not some time, because I haven't recalled much of a backlog. My intention was to work only on those with the identical name because I wasn't quite sure of the procedure to be followed when the names were different. I thought the tool I was using only identified such instances but I now realize that's incorrect. I like to rectify the mistakes but I'm not fully sure what to do.

My speculation is that if I see an identical image with two different names in Wikipedia and in Commons the crack practice is to use what links here on the Wikipedia file and change the links to link to the Commons file and then delete the Wikipedia file. However, it is my understanding that if I remove the Wikipedia file first, then restore it, the "what links here" will not be restored. I have a vague recollection there is a tool to find out what files used to link to but I'm drawing a blank on the name of the tool. I think I need that to, at a minimum restore the situation to prior to the deletion, and if my speculation about the next steps are correct, then change the links and then do the deletion.--S Philbrick (Talk) 17:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

There is a tool but I run it by hand. It will relink anything which somebody has marked NowCommonsOK by adding |reviewer=[username] to the NowCommons tag. If the files have links on Wikipedia, and the name is different, it will list those links. It will specifically say if there are no incoming links.

I have restored the three files. Please let me know if you need any further clarification or action. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks all! DMacks (talk) 07:09, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

"Is humor allowed" question at the Teahouse

Actually the block mentioned was not long ago (June 22), indefinite, and editing under another name. I am hoping if ignored he will stop doing things like this. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

There are times it makes sense to fork a discussion, but this doesn't seem to be one of them. I'll respond at the teahouse if there is something to respond to, but it sounds like there isn't.--S Philbrick (Talk) 13:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

List of programmes broadcast by Cartoon Network (Latin America)

Hi, Could you restore List of programmes broadcast by Cartoon Network (Latin America) please as it was a valid redirect ?, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Davey2010: I restored it to check, but it looks like a redirect to itself. Do you disagree?--S Philbrick (Talk) 14:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sphilbrick, My error it should've been redirected to List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network (Latin America), Thanks for restoring it :), Happy editing, –Davey2010^Talk 14:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah, that makes more sense.--S Philbrick (Talk) 15:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Waqar Zaka talk page

Hi Sphilbrick. Re your reply here, this situation at that talk page is getting a bit out of control. Please see the note I left for Ponyo (who is apparently offline). Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 17:19, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what you mean by "out of control". I see that there has been some activity but the article was recently semi-protected. An editor contacted us at OTRS (which I suspect you're not aware of), as well as asking for help at the help desk. As I noted on the talk page, if they think there are errors in the article they can post requests for edits. I haven't seen such requests subsequent to that note. It looks under control to me but maybe I'm missing something.--S Philbrick (Talk) 23:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Rivertorch: I do see that there have been five edit requests recently. All of which were properly denied. What exactly do you think should be done? --S Philbrick (Talk) 23:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

There were around 70 edits in two days, with so much repetition, blanking, and partial blanking that it was getting nearly impossible to read the page with any degree of certainty who had said what. I obviously wasn't aware of the OTRS ticket, but I did refer one person (sock?) to OTRS. My reply was suppressed, along with the OP's request. The rev-del only added to my confusion, I guess, because I couldn't remember exactly what I had said or why. Pretty sure there was a COI, maybe undeclared paid editor, but I can't be sure. Anyway, since Ponyo semi'd the talk page, I guess there's really nothing more that can be done, at least until the protection expires. Thanks for following up. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 14:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I didn't realize the talk page had been protected. That's unusual.--S Philbrick (Talk) 18:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for Draft:Hopf algebra of a graph

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Draft:Hopf algebra of a graph. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Taku (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old

Hi, User:RonBot has been approved to do the revision deletes (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RonBot) (just waiting for admin and bot flags to be applied), so no need to manually do this category. The bot will add files to Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old needing human review where it senses that the new image is too big, or edits have been made in the 7 days. These will need processing manually. I plan to run the bot from my PC at 3am UK time every day. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: This is great news. I've been sort of monitoring the progress, and it looked like progress was occurring. As an aside, which may be a nonissue but I noticed in the last couple days a number of items in the category required manual removal of the template. In the many thousands I have done that happens on occasion but maybe one or two per thousand items in today all dozen or so required manual editing. I was going to watch for couple more days to see if I could see a pattern but given the running of the bot I thought I'd mention it now. Hopefully a nonissue.--S Philbrick (Talk) 22:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The RexEx expression used on the "rescaled" script is much more involved (and more picky) then the one I will use. So we can only hope it will be OK. Also means I can start upping the tagging of non-free images (I'm down to 245025 pixels - that's about 150K of images left - there was just under 250K when I started!). Note that images in Category:Non-free images tagged for no reduction do not get tagged for reduction - I suspect that some of these could be reduced or maybe we need to decide if they really are necessary at the bigger size.Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)