User talk:Amakuru

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archives: 1 · 2 · 3

Disambiguation link notification for October 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited EasyJet, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ITV and John Barton (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: Shape of the universe[edit]

Greetings! Please note that when you close an RM, it is removed by bot from WP:RM. This means that editors can no longer see the discussion on the WP:RM page, even if the admin action is still required to carry out the result. In this case, the RM was closed as "Page moved", although the page was not yet actually moved - I know that this was not your intent, but it could have confused a reader into thinking that whatever page move was being discussed had already been carried out, and there was nothing more to be done. Non-admin closures are definitely appreciated where the consensus is clearly against a move, or the proposed move target is a red link, but may not be such a good idea where further action by an admin is required. I do appreciate that you tagged the existing redirect for deletion, which would have resolved the situation before long anyway. bd2412 T 14:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi @BD2412: thanks for your message. I found the backlog to be unusually large this morning, so was aiming to make a determination on as many of them as I could, leaving the tight decisions and controversies for competent admins to look at. Regarding the case you mention, I was actually following the instructions at WP:RMNAC: I requested the deletion of the target page per what it says there, and was awaiting the deletion before carrying out the final part of the move. This process has always worked fairly well in the past, I'm pretty sure it's usually only a wait of an hour or two before the deletion gets actioned; however there seems to be a slow decline in the number of admins around performing these sort of requests. A request I made at SL2 last week took two days to be attended to. So I'm not sure what's best. I guess one thing I definitely should be doing is leaving a note to that effect on the RM itself when closing, so people realise that the move is closed but just awaiting technical assistance. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that would work - perhaps something like "The result of the discussion was to move as proposed; this move can be completed by any administrator". Cheers! bd2412 T 14:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
OK, that sounds good thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of interest[edit]

A discussion you may be interested in is this RFC, a proposal to make the second comma in a date/place optional. United States Man (talk) 05:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter[edit]

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

Eurasian Eagle-Owl Maurice van Bruggen.JPG

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

MOS:COMMA[edit]

You recently contributed to a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) § Commas in metro areas. Following a recent related RFC on the wording used at MOS:COMMA in relation to geographic names, a new wording has gathered some support and I have opened a new RFC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § RFC: Proposed amendment to MOS:COMMA regarding geographical references and dates for further discussion of the proposal, which may interest you. sroc 💬 08:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

General Hospital[edit]

Like I stated here, why are you doing this type of linking across Wikipedia? I will post about this at WP:SOAPS. Flyer22 (talk) 23:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi @Flyer22:, there is a move request currently active at Talk:General Hospital#Requested move. One of the issues raised there is that there are a large number of incoming links to the page General Hospital, which would hold the move up if the consensus is to move it. The piped links to the redirect page General Hospital (U.S. TV series) that I've been creating are not in any way prejudicial to that - the link will work whether the title ends up at General Hospital, General Hospital (TV series) or General Hospital (U.S. TV series). This does not affect readers' experience at all. Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I commented about this here at WP:SOAPS. I feel that you should have waited until the requested move discussion was over before making such a link change on a massive scale. Flyer22 (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
And, yes, I am quite aware of what WP:Redirects do; that is not the point. Flyer22 (talk) 00:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
OK then, I'll hold off then. I assumed this was uncontroversial, as a link to a redirect page is as good as a link to the main page, and it's generally good practice to link to the most specific title possible, so that if anyone ever does change the page in future, you're guaranteed a good link. But since you have questioned it, I'll stop now and resume only if the move is approved. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 00:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Uncontroversial? It's clear by the move discussion, which you participated in by "voting" to move the article to the very redirect you were adding, that it is not an uncontroversial matter (yes, the linking is a part of that matter). If you had not participated in that move discussion, then I would believe you that your massive link changes were not meant to bias the move discussion and/or are not in anticipation that the article will be moved. Anyway, I'm done here. Know, however, that your massive link changes in this regard have brought this move matter to the attention of more soap opera editors and that this will ensure more "Oppose move" commentary, including from me, the exact opposite of what you wanted. Flyer22 (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
And let's add that you should revert yourself. You do not change links to redirects on a mass scale in the manner you have done. I will give you a chance to mass revert yourself, but this issue is not a show of good faith by you and is obviously an attempt to usurp consensus. Dave Dial (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Amakuru, I understand that you thought the move was uncontroversial, but in the future you should realize that your preemptively mass-moving links might be construed as trying to unduly influence the discussion, in this case by reducing/eliminating links that you yourself admit are a possible stumbling block to the move. You're right that the user experience is unchanged, but someone participating in the discussion who casually looked at "What Links Here" after your mass move might be misled about the history of the article, infer an existing Wikipedia-wide acceptance of the changed name, etc. — TAnthonyTalk 01:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
@Flyer22:, @DD2K: and @TAnthony: - thanks for your comments. And I'm sorry that you don't believe I was acting in good faith; I can only reiterate that I didn't regard the changes as prejudicial to the vote outcome, except insofar as they would have satisfied any objections on the grounds of the work required to fix the links. Clearly I was wrong about that, in that you guys feel my actions were prejudicial, and I apologise: I made an error of judgement, but hopefully not an error of character. I'm a strong believer in consensus building and I'm happy to accept when my opinion isn't the same as the mainstream; as such, the extra votes that this issue has brought to the General Hospital move request can only be a good thing. As for reverting the changes, I will go ahead and do that in the next few days when I have some time to do so. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Update: I have now completed the reversion of the pages on which I'd changed the link, so all the affected pages are as they were, with the links directly to General Hospital rather than piped. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, I respect the way you handled this issue. Dave Dial (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Super 8 Worldwide please[edit]

Common name does not apply because the word motel has been removed from ALL literature, brochures, headers, signage, etc etc. It is not part of the name of the chain AT ALL. Please move the article back as the name Super 8 Motels does not exist. It is not a "common name". If I have to start an RfC on this issue I will.Camelbinky (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

A Boy was Born[edit]

You relisted the move request for A Boy was Born, where I see misunderstanding, - perhaps because English is not my first language. I would like more eyes on the question, which is related to the more general discussion about capitalisation. Should the project be notified? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey[edit]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

RM notification[edit]

I've created an RM for the naming of the Space Quest series. Since you participated in the Space Quest V RM, you may be interested in commenting on this proposal. --BDD (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

All Rwanda articles now rated[edit]

Hi amakuru, and happy new year! Wishing you all the best for 2014. I wanted to let you know that I went through and applied class and importance rankings to all Rwanda tagged articles, so if you go to the Rwanda project page you'll see how the articles are breaking down now. Amazingly, the ensemble of articles under this project is in really good shape. I don't know if it was you single handedly or the work of several editors with you among them but either way, bravo!! There are a lot that are just about ready for GA, and could probably pass FA as well with minimal work. Most of the top and high importance articles are well developed, and there are relatively few low importance Rwanda articles (so no "fluff"). This is probably one of the best off (if not the best off) Africa projects at this point. Thank you so much for being a major contributor to that, and for all the work you're doing that flies under the radar. Regrading the articles has shined a spotlight on your work and I didn't want to miss the chance to acknowledge all your effort on here. It's truly valuable. Cheers, Carrie -Lemurbaby (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Lemurbaby: and a very happy new year to you too! I hope you had a good holiday season and are enjoying your new placement, now that your time in Kigali has sadly come to an end (which is a pity because I hope to go there myself in August this year, and it would have been nice to organise an impromptu Kigali wiki-meet!)
As for Rwanda, I'm very grateful for your thanks, although I fear it may be somewhat misplaced. I am responsible for the three FAs in the project at the moment, but due to a lack of time in recent years I've not really done so well at being a generalist - although I have all the articles on my watchlist, and revert or correct obvious spurious additions, I'm not actually personally responsible for as much of the content as you might think. I guess the high quality content is just down to the small band of Rwanda focussed editors I collaborated with back in 2006-07, and also any other passing editors who have genuinely slipped under the radar! Having the content organised is going to be very helpful going forward though, it will definitely give me a set of things to focus on.
My focus at present is on the three inter-related topics Rwandan Revolution, Rwandan Civil War and Rwandan Genocide. The good thing there is that they have a lot of material in the background sections in common (and also somewhat in common with the History section of Rwanda), so it's just a case of writing a "summary" version of the three topics and then expanding one section to fully fledged detailed prose in each relevant article. Anyway, all the best and thanks again for the assessments!  — Amakuru (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rwandan Revolution, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Katanga (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Arizona Territory (Confederate States of America)#Requested move[edit]

Please provide your opinion on the alternate proposal to move the article in question to Confederate Arizona. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of adjectival and demonymic forms for countries and nations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barundi (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks from User:Ryk72[edit]

Hi Amakuru, Hopefully you don't mind the new section. I just wanted to drop a quick note to thank you for your support & encouragement late last year. Greatly appreciate the warm & friendly welcome and everything that you did. Looking forward to working on building a better encyclopaedia! Thanks again - Ryk72 (talk) 13:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 31[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Banyarwanda, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rwandan (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Luc Marchal[edit]

Amakuru, do you mind if I combine the histories of User:BanyanTree/Luc Marchal and User:Amakuru/Luc Marchal. Somebody just copyedited my userspace draft and I'd like to move all of the history to your draft and redirect to you, so I can delete my page once Google appears to have caught up. Thanks, BanyanTree 20:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

@BanyanTree: - yes, that's absolutely fine. And apologies for the inaction on this one - I asked your permission to copy it over and work on it last year, but have been busy with other things since and never got around to making anything of it. Hopefully some time in the future! Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Done. - BanyanTree 19:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

Some editors delete the entries on their talk page rather than archiving them. See here, it may give you a wider perspective of what was going on. -- PBS (talk) 12:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:RwandaAirportAuthority2.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:RwandaAirportAuthority2.jpg. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Precious again[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

Rwanda
Thank you for sharing your intimate knowledge about Rwanda, Africa, for getting us closer in news (Amakuru) and images to its nature, culture and people, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were the 168th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much, @Gerda Arendt:, I remember your precious gift from two years ago very well. I think that was the day Rwanda was on the main page, to coincide with the fiftieth anniversary of independence. Since bringing Paul Kagame up to scratch last year, it's been a bit of a slow one in 2014, due mostly to lack of time "in real life". I'm slowly working through Rwandan Genocide, so watch this space! Thanks again, and let me also say that you are an amazing Wikipedian as well!  — Amakuru (talk) 09:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Rwandan Revolution[edit]

Hi Amakuru,

I was looking at the Rwandan Revolution page, which I believe to be almost entirely your work, and wondered if you might ever consider finishing the article? As it is, it appears to be an excellent start, but finishes rather abruptly. Are you still intending to complete it? Brigade Piron (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Brigade Piron: thanks for your message. Yes, it certainly is on my to-do list to finish that article, although unfortunately I can't predict when that might be, yet. I built up some momentum on it around the turn of the year, but I stalled because there were some books that appeared to have really good information on the subject that I needed to visit a library to access. Then with the run-up to the twentieth anniversary of the Rwandan Genocide, and the fact that that is a much higher profile article than the Revolution one, I spent most of the spring trying to sort out some of the most obvious issues with that. And I haven't really had a vast amount of spare time since then. I will keep this in mind, though, along with the third article in the "series", Rwandan Civil War, and hopefully will be able to add to it in the not too distant future. Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 14:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
No worries, but could you add an unsourced stub-like section on the revolution itself? Having such a good lead-up makes it immeasurably more frustrating when you get to the meat and realize that there isn't any yet! Let me know if I can be of assistance too with the others, though I'm currently working on the Congo Crisis rewrite which may be of peripheral interest. All the best! Brigade Piron (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi @Brigade Piron: I've added some material on the revolution itself and also the aftermath, that was already written in Rwandan Genocide and Rwanda articles. This is properly sourced as well so not too terrible. Now it just needs to be expanded a lot! Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
That's much better! Many thanks! Brigade Piron (talk) 17:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 13 July[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

RM notice[edit]

FYI: Pointer to discussion that may be relevant to you.

A requested moves discussion in which you participated in Dec. 2013 has been reopened, at Talk:Mustang horse#Alternative proposal.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  03:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

African American[edit]

Hi Amakuru. Editors are trying to establish what would be the best lede paragraph for this page here. Some of the suggested phrasing involves African immigrants to the United States. As such, it may be of interest to you and other WikiProject Rwanda members. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The Islamic State listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Islamic State. Since you had some involvement with the The Islamic State redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Legacypac (talk) 11:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Move review[edit]

There is currently a discussion at WP:MR that you may be associated with. The thread can be found here. Thank you.Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Relisting a non-event RM[edit]

Hi, Amakuru. I'm wondering why you relisted the Old East Slavic RM. The RM was ignored by other editors who have been working on the article for years after the proposing user tried to change instances of Old East Slavic in the article. These changes were reverted by one of the long-term editors (who is a linguist).

I was the only one to respond with a comment purely to demonstrate that all of his reasons for opening an RM were baseless (i.e., in fact complete misrepresentations of the sources s/he cited). If it helps, I'm happy to strike through "comment" and change it to "strong oppose" as an out and out POV lie. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Iryna Harpy: thanks for your message. I relisted the discussion because it only had one response; if you have a look at WP:RM#Relisting, you'll see that this is quite usual practice when there haven't been many responses, or if a consensus is not yet clear. It causes the entry to go back to the top of the requested move list, so more people can look at it and comment. Relisting does not imply any opinion on my part about whether it should or shouldn't be closed, just seeking to get a better consensus.
After another week, it should then be closed, and if things remain as they are, I imagine it's likely to be closed as not moved. You could change your entry to an "Oppose" if you wish, although it's fairly clear already that it is an oppose, so I'm sure any closer would regard it as such. Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 09:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Cheers, Amakuru. I was aware that it is standard practice when there are few responses and policy-based/guideline-based arguments aren't up to par, but wasn't aware that it's standard practice where there's only been a noisy old moo (being me) and a few crickets and a tumbleweed in attendance. I'll bear it in mind. For some reason, I'd gotten it into my head that relisting tends to happen where there are at least a couple of Wikipedia projects involved where the RM has been posted on their noticeboard.
Okay, I'll change my position to 'oppose' and wait until an actual neutral party or a bot comes round and clears away the template as stale. Thanks for your time! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thanks for the Harley Davidson Club move. Salty Batter (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, @Salty Batter: much appreciated!  — Amakuru (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Hector Xavier Monsegur[edit]

If you can't move it yourself, can I revert the closure? --George Ho (talk) 06:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi @George Ho: why do you want to revert the closure? I appreciate this has been sitting on the db-move list for a little longer than usual, but I anticipate it would get acted on today. There are usually more admins around to carry out such actions than those who perform move closures, in my experience. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Using G6 versus WP:RMTR[edit]

Hello Amakuru. I just closed few G6 deletions per your note at WP:AN. It is actually simpler if you are willing to file these at WP:RMTR. You could give the reason as 'non-admin closure of move discussion' if you want. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi @EdJohnston: thanks for the tip. I used G6 becauase that's what is suggested at WP:RMNAC. Ordinarily the G6 route is quite fast, usually within a few hours, just for some reason it went almost a day this time. I'm not sure how long it usually takes for technical requests to get actioned...  — Amakuru (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
The recent history of WP:RMTR suggests that admins come by to close the requests two or three times a day. EdJohnston (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Attached template[edit]

Talk:Twenty-four priestly gifts thanks for closing this RM. There is also a related template, what to do? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi @In ictu oculi: I would think it's logical to move the template to match the article. Also the title of the navbox should link to the article, not just to the kohen article. I suggest something like:
Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, agree, how does one move a template? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
@In ictu oculi: Moving a template is just like moving any other article, as long as it is not move protected. You just go to Template:The twenty-four priestly gifts and select "Move" from the "More" menu. In this case I have just carried out the move and made the text change, since it seems we are in agreement on the matter. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Brian Kelly (U.S. soccer player)[edit]

A number of things wrong with this page move you managed to botch - one you didn't fix incoming links (e.g. this) and two you have used a naming format that was oppose, at best the article should have been moved to Brian Kelly (American soccer) in line with standard naming conventions. GiantSnowman 18:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: I explained my reading of the consensus in the move closure - it seemed reasonably clear to me in favour of the way I've moved it. Sure, you don't agree, and you voted oppose, but that's the way it goes sometimes. If you really have a problem with the way I closed it, you can always take it to WP:MR, but I personally think I was correct. As for the incoming links, that's a good call. Thanks for helping fix the one you pointed out, I'll see if I can get to the others later on today.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Two supports (not including the anonymous nominator), one partial support to Brian Kelly (American soccer), and one oppose (yes, from me) - you will note that the partial and the oppose were from WP:FOOTBALL members (who actually, you know, know what the standard naming conventions are). I am happy to accept a page move, but I am not happy to accept that page move - so I will ask you again to please move to Brian Kelly (American soccer) in line with standard naming conventions. GiantSnowman 19:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: - I've put a message on the talk page at Brian Kelly (U.S. soccer player) asking those who voted for the current disambiguator why they did so and if they'd object to the more standard one. If they don't give valid objections then I will move it as you suggest. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks, good suggestion - and apologies if my initial message to you was a bit terse! GiantSnowman 09:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Naval rank moves[edit]

I have declined the request at WP:RMTR called 'Naval rank moves'. A link is here. Even if we consider the 2011 discussion as the latest word, it probably wouldn't justify the moves since a local consensus isn't normally enough to undo a site-wide guideline like WP:JOBTITLE. If you believe that job titles in certain areas should be exempt from the guideline, maybe you can open an appropriate RfC. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)