User talk:Amakuru: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 900: Line 900:
:{{ping|Walrasiad|Huwmanbeing}} thanks both for your notes here on my talk page, and I'm responding to both of them here, as they say much the same thing. First of all, I disagree with you that there is anything at all controversial about this, or that there is any legitimate way to close this other than as moved. The guideline at [[WP:NCROY]] is crystal clear on this, with wording {{xt|"Only use a territorial designation (e.g. country) when disambiguation is needed"}} and this was based on the result of the recent RFC at [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#RfC: Should the guideline explicitly accept Elizabeth II, Carl XVI Gustaf, etc titles?]]. Furthermore, it was widely acknolwedged that the previous wording of NCROY, mandating ''of Prussia'' etc. was in contradiction to wider policies including [[WP:CONCISE]] and [[WP:COMMONNAME]]. If you have issues with the wording of the guideline, or with the close of the aforementioned RFC, then you should take that up at the talk page of that guideline, or discuss with the RFC closer. To oppose its implementation at individual RFCs, with a rationale essentially disputing the whole premise of the guideline, however, is not a valid viewpoint and the established [[WP:CONSENSUS]]-building process at WP, and in particular [[WP:NOTAVOTE]], rightly downplays such opposition. Anyway, having said all that, you've both asserted that I'm too [[WP:INVOLVED]] in the matter to make a close, having previously !voted to support such moves and I'll defer to that opinion, even though I don't necessarily think there's much controversy here. I've reopened the discussion and reformulated my close rationale as a support !vote instead. Cheers and happy editing  — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 14:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
:{{ping|Walrasiad|Huwmanbeing}} thanks both for your notes here on my talk page, and I'm responding to both of them here, as they say much the same thing. First of all, I disagree with you that there is anything at all controversial about this, or that there is any legitimate way to close this other than as moved. The guideline at [[WP:NCROY]] is crystal clear on this, with wording {{xt|"Only use a territorial designation (e.g. country) when disambiguation is needed"}} and this was based on the result of the recent RFC at [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#RfC: Should the guideline explicitly accept Elizabeth II, Carl XVI Gustaf, etc titles?]]. Furthermore, it was widely acknolwedged that the previous wording of NCROY, mandating ''of Prussia'' etc. was in contradiction to wider policies including [[WP:CONCISE]] and [[WP:COMMONNAME]]. If you have issues with the wording of the guideline, or with the close of the aforementioned RFC, then you should take that up at the talk page of that guideline, or discuss with the RFC closer. To oppose its implementation at individual RFCs, with a rationale essentially disputing the whole premise of the guideline, however, is not a valid viewpoint and the established [[WP:CONSENSUS]]-building process at WP, and in particular [[WP:NOTAVOTE]], rightly downplays such opposition. Anyway, having said all that, you've both asserted that I'm too [[WP:INVOLVED]] in the matter to make a close, having previously !voted to support such moves and I'll defer to that opinion, even though I don't necessarily think there's much controversy here. I've reopened the discussion and reformulated my close rationale as a support !vote instead. Cheers and happy editing  — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 14:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
::Your close does not address the primary topic concerns raised in the RM. I do not think it can be taken as given that opposers accepted that necessary element of the NCROY-based argument for moving. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] ([[User talk:Srnec|talk]]) 14:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
::Your close does not address the primary topic concerns raised in the RM. I do not think it can be taken as given that opposers accepted that necessary element of the NCROY-based argument for moving. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] ([[User talk:Srnec|talk]]) 14:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Srnec}} with the exception of the Frederick William II case, the primary topic question is already settled. [[Frederick William III]] and [[Frederick William IV]] already redirect to those relevant pages, and have done for aeons. So there's no case to answer there, at least unless a move discussion is held at the relevant disambiguation pages (and it seems highly unlikely that any of the minor dukes listed at [[Frederick William III (disambiguation)]] would usurp the Prussian monarch from the PTOPIC spot).  — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 14:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:32, 28 February 2024

Archives: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 · 30 · 31 · 32 · 33 · 34

"CString" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect CString has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 2 § CString until a consensus is reached. Kpratter (talk) 13:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 3 October 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC is open regarding amending the paid-contribution disclosure policy to add the following text: Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage.

Technical news

  • Administrators can now choose to add the user's user page to their watchlist when changing the usergroups for a user. This works both via Special:UserRights and via the API. (T272294)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re-draftification of Mount Tamana

Hi. I saw you draftified Mount Tamana - I might have done the same but for the fact that it has previously been draftified, and articles can't be moved to draftspace twice per WP:DRAFTOBJECT. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Curb Safe Charmer: this is a slightly unusual case in that there's an editor who's been making large numbers of moves from draft space to main space, with seemingly little regard for the state of the article. A few were legitimately ready, but most are being reverted and the user is now blocked from draft space. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Figbiscuits for the whole saga. If you still feel I've done the wrong thing, I'll happily self-revert, or you can feel free to move it back yourself and we take it from there. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's fine, I was a little surprised by the move, but I don't follow ANI and so I didn't realise the history. I see they've just been blocked. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Am puzzled about a newly-created category

I noticed you're an admin who has posted on Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion and I am puzzled about a newly-created category that has popped-up on my radar, I admit, I know hardly anything about categories and how to create them...but this one just doesn't make sense to me. Could you maybe take a look at Category:Assassinated subnational legislators and tell me if it is a viable category? For instance, I am not sure either Abraham Lincoln or James A Garfield belong in it. Yes, they were at one time members of state legislatures but at the time of their deaths they weren't. Same with Anton Cermak...yes, he was a past member of the Illinois House of Representatives but he was Mayor of Chicago when he was killed and so on. I would have posted about this on an actual Categories talk page somewhere but I couldn't figure out where to post about it so here I am. Thanks in advance for any help on this - Shearonink (talk) 01:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"🔞" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 🔞 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 16 § 🔞 until a consensus is reached. Thryduulf (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Van Nuys

Hey, I'd like to apologize for what seems to be a misunderstanding. I did not have the intention of renaming the page when I did. I assumed it was the same fella who renamed the categories. It was renaming of the categories that I objected to since it made it inconsistant with the other categories of Los Angeles neighborhoods.

I'm only renaming one category now, the one about "People from Van Nuys" to make it consistant with the others about people particular neighborhoods in Los Angeles. Just wanted to give you a heads-up. -- Omnis Scientia (talk) 04:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October music

October songs
my story today

Today, it's a place that inspired me, musings if you have time. My corner for memory and music has today a juxtaposition of what our local church choirs offer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Romanian woman composer is today's topic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RIP to her... And good to learn about her work.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! A French woman today with a small body and a great voice whose portrayal of a role with different aspects I enjoyed! And another interesting composer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 October 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Gideon (2020) Move request draft

In case you don't get the ping (I don't trust those thingies :) Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)#Request for independent feedback on Requested move draft. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Amakuru. Thank you for your work on 2023 Zaman Park raid. User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for your work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 16:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FAR for Rwanda

User:buidhe has nominated Rwanda for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Admin

Hi Amakuru, I'm thinking about, after more than 15 years on Wikipedia, of applying for the admin bit. Given this, I've decided to start closing RM discussions as to date I've been limiting mostly to responding to technical requests. If you have time, would you be able to have a think if there is anything that might prevent a successful bid in my editing and is there anything you think I should be working on? I'm not planning on running in the near future, but let's say within a year or so...also, when the time comes would you consider nominating me. Other admins that might also know me well include Rosguill and Barkeep49. Best wishes Polyamorph (talk) 08:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Polyamorph Based on our interactions to date, I think you should pursue this! Unfortunately you've caught me in a very tumultuous off-wiki time so I can't commit to doing a more thorough investigation of your edits to check for any problems or otherwise promise much support, and thus should not be the a formal co-nominator. signed, Rosguill talk 16:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Polyamorph: agree with what Rosguill says here, I've seen nothing but good stuff from you so far, and thanks for coming to me for support - it means a lot when editors accord me with this sort of respected status, as indeed Theleekycauldron did earlier in the year with her RFA (regrettably I was unable to put in the time to nominate on that occasion, but was still very happy to be asked and to endorse the RfA). My time on-wiki is choppy, but as you say there's no deadline so I will endeavour to do some thorough searches for any gotchas over the next few months and hopefully be able to be a co-nom when the time comes. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both, I think the first thing that I'll do is submit a request at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll, which should pick up any areas that I need to work on. And in the meantime I'll start preparing my case, to make sure I'm prepared. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 06:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty negative on ORCP and the feedback offered as I write this is why: both people are saying you should run and yet the're making this harder by giving you problems - that might not even be problems - for you to solve. Creates unnecessary barriers for someone who already has admin in mind. You didn't list me as a potential nom but if you'd be interested in me being one I am happy to do my deep dive into you. I have one other editor up first that I need to get to. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I agree with Barkeep49 - an ORCP really isn't necessarily and can sometimes hurt you. If feedback is needed it's usually better to get it privately from your (potential) nominators. Galobtter (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to see ORCP as a sort of sanity check. It was very useful for me, not because the advice was that on point (they raised several issues that never came up in my actual RFA, and the overall assessment was more cautious than the eventual result suggested) but simply because if running for admin is a completely absurd idea, or there's some massive skeleton in your cupboard that will floor you immediately, then those guys will flush it out for you.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Barkeep49, I didn't put you down because you hadn't replied by the time I submitted the ORCP. But I'd be very happy for your co-nom. The ORCP gives me an idea of the kind of scrutiny I'm going to receive, I'd rather go in to an RfA knowing what to expect :) Polyamorph (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well Amakuru and Barkeep, the RfA candidate poll is pretty positive, so that's encouraged me further to do this. In terms of timing, it's very difficult to find a "spare" week to commit to an RfA. I am thinking the christmas holiday period might be best, if that works. Or if that's too soon, some time in the New Year, although I know I will have a lot of work on then! I will focus my nomination on Requested Moves, since there is a perpetual backlog there and I've started closing discussions there in addition to technical requests. AfD could also be an area I can contribute and is very quiet these days! RfD is also an area I have some experience in, which Rosguill could comment on, although I note in their comment above that they can't commit to a co-nom. Anti-vandalism is an area I've worked in the past, in the Huggle heydays, although to be honest the bots take care of that to a large extent now. Finally, the comment about NPP, I spent a good few years with that user-right and contributed a substantial number of page reviews. I stepped away from it because I wanted to focus more on editing, and I've done more than my fair share. With the admin bit, there is nothing stopping me stepping in to review articles again, although personally I think the solution to the NPP backlog is going to require more automation, with advances in machine learning this might not be such an issue in the future. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 10:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's too soon and you wouldn't be the first person for whom that is the best week. I hope to spend some real time vetting RfA candidates this week and you're #2 on the list. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coventry City 2–2 Bristol City (1977)

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 26 December 2023. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/December 2023. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there by user:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before the article appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt: thanks, that will be a nice present for me on Boxing Day!  — Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November Articles for creation backlog drive

Hello Amakuru:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over 3100 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge history

I see that you have closed a WP:MOVEREQ discussion recently. Could you please merge the edit history of both the Allegations of war crimes against Israel and Israeli war crimes, if that's possible? 39.34.146.93 (talk) 04:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, per your request here I've restored the revisions from 25 March 2022 to 4 August 2023 back into the history, which were initially deleted during my recent rename. Hopefully this is non-controversial, as the revisions were all visible prior to the rename and were only deleted for housekeeping reasons. Also pinging Tamzin, who removed some content within those earlier revisions for arbitration enforcement reasons, in case I've missed something here. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's fine by me. Thanks. :) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 20:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request to delete the "Orang Amerika Malaysia" Wikipedia page

Hi Amakuru. I would like to make a request to delete the "Orang Amerika Malaysia" Wikipedia page. This is because the page is an error. The title and name of the page should be named "Orang Malaysia Amerika" instead of "Orang Amerika Malaysia".

Thank you. Belle vieu (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Belle vieu: I assume you're referring to the page ms:Orang Amerika Malaysia on the Malaysian Wikipedia? If so, it's worth noting that the Malaysian Wikipedia is actually a separate project from this one where we're talking now, which is the English Wikipedia. The policies and guidelines at that project may be very different from those we have here on the English project. That said, it looks like moving a page is fairly straightforward on the Malaysian wiki. If you follow this link here: [1] that should take you to the page where you can choose a new name and then move the page. I don't speak Malaysian and I have no authority on the Malaysian wiki so this is just advice, I have no idea if the proposed move is correct or not! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2023 November newsletter

The WikiCup is a marathon rather than a sprint and all those reaching the final round have been involved in the competition for the last ten months, improving Wikipedia vastly during the process. After all this hard work, Delaware BeanieFan11 has emerged as the 2023 winner and the WikiCup Champion. The finalists this year were:-

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether they made it to the final round or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the competition, some of whom did very well. Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from the quality creations, expansions and improvements made, and the numerous reviews performed. All those who reached the final round will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. Awards will be handed out in the next few days.

  • Unlimitedlead wins the featured article prize, for 7 FAs in total including 3 in round 2.
  • MyCatIsAChonk wins the featured list prize, for 5 FLs in total.
  • England Lee Vilenski wins the featured topic prize, for a 6-article featured topic in round 4.
  • MyCatIsAChonk wins the featured picture prize, for 6 FPs in total.
  • Delaware BeanieFan11 wins the good article prize, for 75 GAs in total, including 61 in the final round.
  • New York (state) Epicgenius wins the good topic prize, for a 41-article good topic in the final round.
  • Berkelland LunaEatsTuna wins the GA reviewer prize, for 70 GA reviews in round 1.
  • MyCatIsAChonk wins the FA reviewer prize, for 66 FA reviews in the final round.
  • New York (state) Epicgenius wins the DYK prize, for 49 did you know articles in total.
  • Ukraine Muboshgu wins the ITN prize, for 46 in the news articles in total.

The WikiCup has run every year since 2007. With the 2023 contest now concluded, I will be standing down as a judge due to real life commitments, so I hope that another editor will take over running the competition. Please get in touch if you are interested. Next year's competition will hopefully begin on 1 January 2024. You are invited to sign up to participate in the contest; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors. It only remains to congratulate our worthy winners once again and thank all participants for their involvement! (If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.) Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 November 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move revert

I was the page mover who performed the page move at University Visvesvaraya College of Engineering. I am not getting why you reversed that move. There are over a dozen WP:RS that mention the University of Visvesvaraya College of Engineering, excluding the official website. Let me know if I am missing something. Pasting some source below. Maliner (talk) 11:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References


@Maliner: fine, thanks for the above. Given that sources seem to be split, it's fair enough we'll go with the version on their website and I've redone the move. It's only that we see far too many cases where editors assume that a change of WP:OFFICIALNAME means an automatic move of the page, without considering the other stipulations of WP:NAMECHANGES. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ACE 2023

There are too few strong content contributors on ArbCom; give it a thought? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: ahhh.... actually you're now the second person to suggest this to me - I think TonyBallioni recommended I have a go a few years ago. And it really is a great honour for such great Wikipedians as yourself and Tony to consider that I might be worthy of such a position. Whether the community-at-large would think so, I have no idea - I sometimes feel like I'm becoming a bit tetchy or argumentative with people here these days for not very good reasons, which might count against me, but perhaps that's no more than anyone else! And yes, I do consider myself a content contributor first-and-foremost, although I've really not been able to do as much as I'd like lately and with Wikipedia:Featured article review/Rwanda/archive2 on the horizon and not enough time to do much about it, I think I'm going to be down on FAs this year for the first time. 😔
Anyway, to answer the actual question you asked - unfortunately right now I don't think I can commit anything like the sort of time that would be required for someone on the arbitration committee. And realistically I'd probably need to ramp up my activity at the drama-boardz™️ for some time before running, just to convince people I had the nous and experience in such area. But in principle I really would like to run, I think it would be a good experience for me. And also I'd be glad to represent the more content-focused people like yourself - which is not to say I think the project is actually divided into binary groups with some being content editors and others purely administrative, most senior editors do some of both - but I can definitely see the value of balance on the committee. So in short, I definitely see myself having a serious look at this in a few years' time, when real life commitments hopefully should be less onerous than right now and sorry I can't give you a better answer than that this year! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Next year then :) The need to restore some content focus to ArbCom is urgent; there are changes in latitudes, changes in attitudes, that just make no sense. I keep meaning to tune in at Rwanda, but one shiny distraction after another, the current shiny distraction being my concern about said trends. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You'd be a great candidate; the content focus, unimpeachable activity as an admin, and the commitment to the project for over a decade would add a needed voice to the committee (by quick scan SilkTork is the only current arb who checks all those boxes.) That being said as someone once said, there are more important things in life than Wikipedia, and there are certainly more important things in life than being an arb or functionary. You'd be great at either would have my vote, and I share a lot of the overall concerns of SandyGeorgia, but at this point, I'm hardly one to ask someone to take one for the team . Real life and things you enjoy come first. Hope you're doing well and thanks for the happy ping. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyBallioni: ooh, thanks for the response and the positive thoughts, and good to see you here briefly following my ping! Life's all good thanks, I'm enjoying things, just insanely busy with a fairly intense work project, the demands of family life and also other real-life activities - a far cry from 2021 when most of life was suspended and my work load was fairly light, enabling me to generate enough content to gain third place in the WikiCup! I feel like it will all calm down again in a few years though, after which time I will hopefully become much more active here again. Anyway, wishing you all the best once again with whatever's keeping you busy offsite, and hope we will also see you back in a fuller capacity whenever you're free to do so. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"I'd probably need to ramp up my activity at the drama-boardz™️". No, not at all. A really good Committee is one made up of a range of voices and experiences. All the Committees I've been on have been rich with Arbs who have full experience and knowledge of the drama boards. As such, it is always of value to have the views of someone who is not interested in the drama boards, so has a different view, not one perhaps tinged with prejudice because they are already familiar with User:X from the amount of times they have appeared on the drama boards. I have little interest in or experience of the drama boards, yet I have served on three Committees, and one of the things that other Arbs have said they valued most from my involvement was my different perspective on issues. We don't want a Committee made up of like-minded individuals all with the same experiences and prejudices. I'd say you would be of greater value to the Committee by not getting involved, and so retaining a fresh, untarnished viewpoint. SilkTork (talk) 12:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2023).

Administrator changes

added 0xDeadbeef
readded Tamzin
removed Dennis Brown

Interface administrator changes

added Pppery
removed

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 12 November 2023 until 21 November 2023 to stand in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections.
  • Xaosflux, RoySmith and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee Elections. BusterD is the reserve commissioner.
  • Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
  • Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
  • Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
  • Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
  • An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Thanks for the bludgeoning check at Talk:May 1992 Yugoslavian parliamentary election. You did ping me there so I did still respond, but I tried to add value as well :) --Joy (talk) 09:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Joy: that's quite alright, and thanks for the note. I know how it feels when you feel passionately that something is being misunderstood and are trying unsuccessfully to get the point across - I've been there before! In this case I can sort of vaguely see where you're coming from, but in the end IMHO WP:COMMONNAME is what should rule the roost. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia were regarded as separate entities by the UN, but in common parlance and sourcing, they were both simply called Yugoslavia. I suppose this is similar to the Republic of China (1912–1949) and the People's Republic of China are seen as separate discontinuous states, but they're both called China within the period of time they existed. CHeers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, and the point I'm trying to make it wasn't as common as it seems. That's why I posted the ngrams link, it shows that there were ample references to the other common name, S&M, too, before and after the '99 events that were widely publicized, and that the use of Yugoslavia dropped off instantly after that (despite the fact it took them a few years to go to S&M formally). After all, that's the underpinning of why the FRY article has been merged with the S&M article for years now with no discernible detriment to the average reader. --Joy (talk) 10:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 November 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November music

November songs
story · music

Vacation pictures offered if you click on songs, and my story today is a DYK hook from 13 years ago OTD: about the great music at one of my churches. Mozart's Requiem to come on Sunday, coupled with Arvo Pärt's Da pacem Domine, - I guess you might come if it was a bit closer. Perhaps watch the video of our last production, our first on yt, ever. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

... and it was good, User Talk:Gerda Arendt#Mozart Requiem --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: thanks for the above pics, and I will definitely check out the video... I've never been to Ibiza actually (only Mallorca from those islands), seems like it's got lots of beautiful scenery. People here just regard Ibiza as a place to go clubbing but obviously great apart from that.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! - in memoriam Jerome Kohl who said (In Freundschaft): "and I hope that they have met again in the beyond and are making joyous music together" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December music

December: story · music · places

Today's story is about Maria Callas, on her centenary. - Aaron Copland died OTD, and Jerome Kohl said something wise on his talk. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A new church year began, - a new era? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: that's nice, happy new year to you and happy new era! I enjoyed listening to that hymn... I spent the night in the Ramsgate tunnels this weekend. Very interesting place and I will perhaps come back with more stories and pictures about this anon...  — Amakuru (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds interesting! - Today, I managed to get the pics to snow (on 28 Nov), and heard a lovely concert, after listening to a miracle of meditative dreaming on 6 December (or just click on music). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
... and today, to Paris (29 Nov) with a visit to the Palais Garnier, - to match the story of Medea Amiranashvili, - don't miss listening to her expressive voice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My story today is about Michael Robinson, - it's an honour to have known him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for what you do and stand for! I wish you a good festive season and a peaceful New Year! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Today, I have a special story to tell, of the works of a musician born 300 years ago. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: thanks for sharing, and on this note I'm sorry I wasn't able to action this for you yesterday, it would have been nice to have it on the anniversary, but readers will still get to learn about him shortly anyway. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Today I just want to celebrate. Some other day, I would like to find out what I did wrong, - push too little, push too much? - I confess that it was a bit disappointing not to see ALT2 on the English Main page, - it seemed so close when I went to bed. But at least it's on the German one, and the composer in the English OTD (which - as I learned in the process which started when the article was made a redirect in June as not sourced enough, and I thought: fine, then we can wait for his birthday ... - doesn't do blurbs for birthdays.). Today I just want to celebrate. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you today for Coventry City 2–2 Bristol City (1977), "about a dramatic football match which took place at the end of the 1976-77 season in English football's top division. Both of the two teams were in danger of being relegated down to the second division, along with Sunderland, who were playing a simultaneous match up at Everton. Well, almost simultaneous... due to traffic congestion the Coventry game started late, which meant it ended up finishing five minutes later that the Sunderland game. And because Sunderland lost their game (a result the Coventry chairman displayed prominently on the scoreboard for the players to see), Coventry and Bristol both knew that the 2-2 draw was enough for them both to survive. So they spent the last five minutes in a "good-natured kickabout", leaving Sunderland relegated. And their fans are still livid about it 44 years later!" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you active on ITN (and nobody else I know): could you please check the nom for Rebekka Habermas, 21 December, late nom due to Christmas? - The best obit dates from 25 December, but I'd rather not move her. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your quick efficient response! - Similarly today: Heike Matthiesen. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again! - Remember C. F. Abel whose image didn't make it to the English Main page on his tercentenary? Now the DYK crew thinks the hook should run without image. Sigh. - On a more cheerful note: I uploaded more pics, with Christmas trees and related artworks, and I have two women on the Main page (for a sad reason). Our Christmas singing (of my user's infobox music "singen, singen") was pictured! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: no problems, glad to help. And sorry it's not working out re the image hook... it's true that in general we don't accommodate requests because obviously everyone wants the image slot if they can get it. Quite annoying if it's a rare one though.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If anybody learned that image thingy it's me, - long time on DYK, most hooks, very few such requests, - I still remember how my first image request (in a nom) was not taken, a castle, and instead a grape was shown (in 2010). But this one is seriously of a different kind on many levels, as I tried to explain, - I seem to fail language-wise because otherwise I believe that the promoter would have understood, instead of telling me to go to the DYK talk (where I'm don't feel welcome anyway) or make the composer a GA. - Per my request, at least the hook was improved, but it has no indication of the composer also being a player of the viol - which the image would show. Mozart (as a boy) copied one of his symphonies, and it was regarded as a Mozart work and got a K. number ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

George Daniel

I just noticed that there appears to be some history for the page at George Bedford Daniel - any chance you could histmerge that as well? Launchballer 11:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer: that's interesting - it looks like that version only existed from 7–8 August 2015, but that actually is a time when the main article was redirecting... so I probably could merge in some of the versions. I have no idea if any of the content is usable, but I suppose it makes sense to have it all in one place. Will have a look at that in the next day or two. Cheres  — Amakuru (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 December 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
  • The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
  • Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 11, 2023 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons Greetings!

Hello there, thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia! Wishing you a Very Merry Christmas and here's to a happy and productive 2024! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: well, that's very nice, thank you muchly! And wishing you and yours a very pleasant Christmas and new year season as well. Looking forward to another year at the coalface, and for me I hope it's a more productive one - I've barely had time to write any new content this year unfortunately... Perhaps a new destubathon could be in the offing too?! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Please find way editors are noted to redirect that "fc steaua" article 93.143.89.189 (talk) 11:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@93.143.89.189 - I do agree with you that it should be redirected, but the decision needs to be made through a proper consensus, we can't just make it unilaterally... probably listing it at WP:AFD might be the best way forward.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Block evasion, canvassing and POV-pushing by the IP. The Banner talk 11:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GB & Ireland <-> British Isles moves

Hi Amakuru, I made the series of moves following splitting out List of natural disasters in Ireland from List of natural disasters in the British Isles, where I noticed on the latter that there more articles using "British Isles" than there were using "Great Britain and Ireland", so for the sake of WP:CONSISTENCY, I moved some of the "20xx GB and Ireland heatwave" pages to their "20xx British Isles heatwave" equivalent. I don't believe it's controversial, but obviously you disagree. Would you be open to a single, centralised RM debate on moving them? (Note, some of the entries in that list article are pointing at redirects, still, rather than directly to the actual page). BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 00:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for FC Steaua București

An article that you have been involved in editing—FC Steaua București—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Peripheral drift illusion
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Anomalous motion illusion1.svg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 02:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays!


— mw (talk) (contribs) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Season's Greetings

Season's Greetings
Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! The Nativity scene on the Pulpit in the Pisa Baptistery by Nicola Pisano is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 02:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 December 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons Greetings

Merry Christmas, Amakuru!
Wishing you Season's Greetings and a Happy Winter Solstice! As the year comes to a close, I want to express my appreciation for your dedicated efforts on Wikipedia and extend heartfelt thanks for your assistance throughout the years. May the holiday season bring you and your loved ones abundant joy, good health, and prosperity.

RV (talk) 09:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2024 appeal

At my previous appeal I was advised to draft my appeal which is at User:Crouch, Swale/Appeal and show it to at least 1 experienced user, as you commented on several of the previous discussions I'm wandering what you think of the draft and if you have any advice, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:NewTimesCover2007.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:NewTimesCover2007.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the 2024 WikiCup!

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2024 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close on 31 January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), Epicgenius (talk · contribs · email), and Frostly (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024



Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy New Year

2024

Same location pictured as 2019. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 2023 picture is from the Abel Fest in Köthen, celebrating the tercentenary of Carl Friedrich Abel, a viol virtuoso, composer and concert organiser in London (together with Bach's youngest son), born on 22 December 1723 in Köthen, where the new catalogue of his works was introduced, - my story today. - Thank you for everlasting fireworks! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the Main page: the person who made the pictured festival possible --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places
Yesterday was a friend's birthday, with related music. - I'm on vacation - see places. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: thank you for the info, and enjoy your holiday. I am very jealous, it would be lovely to have a break in the sunshine at this time of year when the winter seems to be really dragging on! And that fish platter looks absolutely amazing. I must add La Palma to my bucket list of places to visit. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Stifle

Hello, Amakuru. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
Message added 16:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Stifle (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Shiloh

@Amakuru: I disagree with your recent edit for the Battle of Shiloh. (No, I did not revert it.) The sentence prior to the edited sentence states that the battle "was a major battle in the American Civil War". Tennessee had already seceded from the Union and joined the Confederacy. Wouldn't it be logical for "Tennessee" to link to Tennessee in the American Civil War instead of today's state of the Tennessee that is part of the USA? It might be a little extreme in this example, but does your logic mean that a writing about a battle involving the Roman Empire should link to Italy instead of the Roman Empire? TwoScars (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 January 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TNA Wrestling move

It's clear the consensus was to use the fully spelled out Total Nonstop Action Wrestling. The non-admin closure needs to be ignored and proper full title used. Please move the article to the full title. Thanks. oknazevad (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oknazevad - there was no evidence presented in the RM that the WP:COMMONNAME in sources is "Total Nonstop Action Wrestling", news sources such as [2] and the others I've seen do not mention that spelled out name at all. The proposal was to move to "TNA Wrestling" and the close was in line with the article titling policy. There is little to no justification for using an WP:OFFICIALNAME which even the organization itself doesn't use on its front page. Per WP:NOTAVOTE, decisions are made through the lens of policy. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The policy is WP:CONSENSUS. More specifically, the guideline MOS:ACROTITLE calls for spelling out acronyms in titles in most cases. The article for the NFL is at National Football League despite being called the NFL far more often and rarely spelled out in news articles. Same with other major pro sports leagues and pro wrestling promotions. Spelling out "Total Nonstop Action" would be consistent with those titles and with the consensus in the move discussion (where the spell-out vs abbreviation question was explicitly discussed and spelling out was clearly favored). I'll take the issue to WP:MR if I must. As it stands, your move comes off as a super vote. oknazevad (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oknazevad - I don't understand why you're insisting on this. The name that's been moved to is overwhelmingly the common used name and the one readers will recognise. You supported it initially, as did other contributors, until the unevidenced alternative was proposed, and there is absolutely no reason why that alternative little used name was proposed instead of the one initially proposed. National Football League is not a good comparison because that name is used in at least some sources, and it's also just a single title - the inclusion of Wrestling makes this markedly different. It's like FA Cup or PGA Tour or any number of other acronym based proper names which aren't spelled out because common names don't do so. If both the organisation itself and sources call it TNA Sports, then of course do must we, this is fairly obvious.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also oknazevad, you mention ACROTITLE but the first paragraph of that guideline says "Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject". Well we can debate whether TNA Wrestling even counts as an acronym, given that it has two words, but in any case TNA Wrestling clearly satisfies both the "subject is known primarily by its abbreviation" and the "primarily associated with the subject" clause, so that guideline is amply met here, alongside the WP:COMMONNAME policy. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, you can insist on a move review if you like, but I'm still baffled why you don't think this title is the preferable one. Perhaps a relist is another option, so we can flesh out the debate.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Few thoughts. Firstly, the TNA abbreviation on its own is not primarily associated with the wrestling promotion, that's why it's not a redirect. Secondly, in constructs like FA Cup and PGA Tour, the acronym part is an adjectival use referencing the parent entity.
But I guess what really bothers me is that the issue was specifically discussed, and consensus was pretty clear. Even the person who proposed the move ultimately agreed the long form should be used based on the comments of the editors who brought it up. If the supporters of a move all agree on one form of the title and the closer just ignores that in favor of another title, I don't see how that closer can be respecting consensus of the participants. oknazevad (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To help clear things up, being one of the many editors involved in the requested move from "Impact Wrestling" to the company's current branding, which is indeed "Total Nonstop Action Wrestling"...
As oknazevad pointed out, despite the editor who launched the RM (Vjmlhds) initially requesting the article be moved from "Impact Wrestling" to "TNA Wrestling", like the vote cast by myself, the overwhelming majority of Support votes in the RM for changing the article's name were indeed for the FULL name, NOT the shortened form. While news article references may use "TNA" or "TNA Wrestling", from what I'm aware of, the policy for titling Wikipedia articles is, when possible, the company/brand's full name is used.
And, to address Amakuru's position, I direct attention to another Wikipedia policy, one that I've actually used only once so far on here: WP:IGNORE. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 03:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru, an editor has asked for a move review of TNA Wrestling. I believe, you might want to participate in the move review. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 07:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Nadar

Made a few tweaks, mainly adding a bit more from the main Nadar article. Think the spinoff's a good call. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.7% of all FPs. 23:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:2024 administrative elections proposal – could use some feedback

I've been workshopping an RfA reform proposal, but i think it might need a tune-up. If you have concerns, or ideas on how to improve it, I'm all ears :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TNA Wrestling

Hello, Amakuru. I have seen you moved the article Impact Wrestling to TNA Wrestling. I'm just curious, you said (the full name saw more support, but the article was moved to TNA Wrestling, no Total Nonstop Action Wrestling. Is there any reason for the move? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 January 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Move of College soccer and the associated talk pages

Would you please restore the portion of the old Talk:College soccer page that had its edit history wiped as a result of this move? I thought it might have been moved to Talk:College soccer in the United States but I cannot find those old edits anywhere. Jay eyem (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jay eyem: apologies, I had moved that page to Talk:College soccer/Archive 1, but forgot to link to it from anywhere else so it got orphaned. I have now put a talk page header at Talk:College soccer, which includes links to that archive page. Unlike an article it isn't possible to history merge it, since the talk pages have different comments on them and we ideally want to retain both versions.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok that looks perfect actually, just glad that we have it maintained. Thank you! Jay eyem (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).

CheckUser changes

removed Wugapodes

Interface administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

Technical news

  • Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)

Arbitration

  • Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
  • Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February

story · music · places

You made my day by restoring the Bayreuth Festival to the tenor, - thank you. Back home, but slowly updating images, hope you see it as sharing, not trying to make you jealous. It's an island I returned to twice, and still don't feel I saw all its beauties, this time discovered the Cascadas de los Colores on 27 Jan (birthday of Mozart and our conductor) ;) - It's a steep, rough, vulcanic place with extremely windy roads which needs to be considered before going, but off the beaten track which I like. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: thanks for the note, and it sounds like you had a fantastic time out there... Of course I'm a little bit jealous, particularly at this time of year when being in a warm sunny place seems such a distant memory! (and every year I think I might go and spend Christmas in east Africa, only to find the plane fares are impossibly high)... But I definitely view it as just sharing, much like sending someone a postcard, so keep them coming - I'm fascinated to see what different areas of the world look like. And it's not like I never go anywhere myself... I think I promised you some views from our trip to the Balkans last year, which I still haven't got around to uploading. On the Bayreuth Festival issue, I'm glad I could help. I try not to tread on too many toes at DYK, as there are no doubt good reasons for some of the ways things are done there, and their goal is ultimately the same as ours, to promote good encyclopedic content on the main page. But if I see a quick win like that one, where the original version seems better and more informative than the edited version, or the Max Glatt issue today, I consider that I've improved things. Cheers, and enjoy your Wednesday.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you on all accounts! (I remember having typed a long response but nevermind.) - When I made today's story I was sure Alfred Grosser would appear on RD today, which may happen or not but I go to bed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Seiji Ozawa. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... and today a woman and her views --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The image, taken on a cemetery last year after the funeral of a distant but dear family member, commemorates today, with thanks for their achievements, four subjects mentioned on the Main page and Vami_IV, a friend here. Listen to music by Tchaikovsky (an article where one of the four is pictured), sung by today's subject (whose performance on stage I enjoyed two days ago). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Listen to music from Ukraine if you like, - I heard it in 2022, and the November concert (at a different church) raised a truckload of winter clothes. My story today is also from my life: I heard the singer in 3 of the 4 mentioned musical items. I sang in yesterday's. - Rinaldo (opera) premiered OTD, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noman (novel)

Hi, I wanted to check in on this revert of my redirect. You mention the topic could be notable. Does that mean you found sources for it? If so I’d be glad if you added them. I searched and found nothing. Innisfree987 (talk) 11:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Innisfree987: when I searched I thought I was seeing some sources, but on further inspection you're right, it's just fan sites and sales things, so that's fine - I've self-reverted back to the redirect. If anyone chooses to actually challenge this, then it would have to go through a full AFD I think, as the page had been around for a while, but for now this is just a PROD-style situation so no issues. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for putting another eye on it! Much appreciated. Innisfree987 (talk) 12:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USFL draft caps

Re moves like this, is there still reason to think my moves to lowercase were controversial? Should I re-do them, or will you? Dicklyon (talk) 11:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dicklyon: I have no objection myself, and I'd say on balance, given the RFC close, this should not now be regarded as controversial. If anyone challenges again it I guess we can discuss further, but it shouldn't be seen as a conduct issue on your part at this stage. As an aside, as much as I think it's probably a good idea to make draft sentence case, and you started the RFC in good faith, I'm not entirely content with the outcome, as it implies that we can circumvent the usual RM processes to try to get a different result, even though RM has been tried and tested as the venue of choice for article title decisions for many years. But it is what it is, and hopefully it will be seen as an exceptional case and not as a precedent for this kind of thing. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm remembering correctly. I'm the fellow who asked that those pages be returned to "Draft" & then an RM be opened for them, 'if' someone thought they should be moved to "draft". PS - I too am concerned, the recently closed-RFC is being used to bypass the RM route. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: My view is that these are entirely unique and different leagues and that coverage of them may vary. It may very well turn out that some of the shorter lasting or smaller leagues have established that their drafts are proper names. We can't use the closure of that discussion to dictate whether "draft" should be capitalized elsewhere.
To be clear to @Dicklyon, these do not appear to be uncontroversial moves based on feedback I've seen across a number of locations. Per WP:PCM, a RM should be started based on an expectation that someone could disagree with this move. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As per the closing admin, the NFL Draft discussion has no effect on other leagues. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all, I stand corrected then, the moves aren't to be undertaken by Dick without an RM. It does make me wonder, if the "RFC" in question was intended only to solve the very narrow question of how NFL drafts are titled, not even drafts more generally, why it couldn't have been a regular RM. It seems like it effectively was just an RM, just without the usual headers and with half the discussion dominated by its legitimacy. I'm on the fence about whether I like the outcome itself, but I think we ought to determine not to allow this sort of venue hopping in the future.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't handled as an RM because there just was an RM at Talk:2024 NFL Draft a few months ago that rejected the moves, and opening another one so soon would be seen as clearly disruptive. There's a reason the RFC was met with so many saying it was inappropriate. It clearly comes of as an attempt to end-around a recent RM. oknazevad (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, that move request resulted in "no consensus". It was not "rejected", which per WP:THREEOUTCOMES would have been either closed as "not moved" or "consensus not to move". —Bagumba (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An admin (I forget which one) told me some years ago that the difference between "no consensus" and "consensus not to move" is largely cosmetic, and I actually think that's largely true. If the discussion is poorly attended that's one thing, but if a good number of editors contribute to a dicussion and there's fundamental disagreement without clear policy evidence one way or the other, then that's the outcome. And our guidelines say that such cases default to the status quo, which is functionally the same as if there's a consensus not to move. I don't think no consensus should be taken as a sign that further discussion is necessary to establish consensus, or that a change of venue is warranted, if all the relevant issues have already been aired. Rather, the matter should be left alone for a while and the "losers" should WP:DROPTHESTICK for a time as they would in any other situation. This was a rare case (as I realised after my initial comment at the RFC) where the raw numbers from ngrams didn't tell the whole story, there was decent evidence that capping could have been appropriate which was amply presented in last year's discussion, and without casting any bad faith on any actors here, I do agree with Oknazevad that IMHO this decision to go behind the back of the RM participants is a poor one. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and downcased the main one to USFL draft. The only conceivable reason to object to that would be to spite me, as it's overwhelmingly lowercase in sources, and the only reason Amakuru had re-capped it before was because of the ongoing NFL draft discussion. If someone objects or reverts, sure, we'll do an RM and waste another whole lot of editors' time. Dicklyon (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the move, as it was very clearly not uncontroversial. Another user asked you to start an RM instead and, based on WP:PCM, a discussion should have been started instead of just moving the article. Though you have no obligation to adhere to my request, I also asked you on your talk page not to make draft moves without a discussion. I even specifically included the diff where you asked if you could move these pages. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, so much for the RM route being taken. Once again, the page-in-question has been lower-cased, unilaterally. GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty standard for uncontroversial case fixes. If someone objects and makes it into a controversy for some reason, we'll go to RM. Dicklyon (talk) 23:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the 'second time' you've unilaterally moved that page to 'lowercase', bypassing an RM. I could again, request an administrator to revert the page move. But, I'll leave that call to others to make. GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay: I have reverted the move, as multiple people asked Dicklyon not to move the page before he did so. Per WP:PCM, he is expected to start an RM before moving the page based on this. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding me? smh BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The USFL pages or NFL Draft pages cannot be moved without an RM, per WP:RFCNOT, and anything else is a WP:IAR that nobody is reverting. Randy Kryn (talk) 07:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Always refreshing when the red dot notification is not a DEFCON 1, straw man response. —Bagumba (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba: thank you muchly for the barnstar... As I was saying to Floq a few months ago, it's all too easy for me and probably others to get sucked into a trap of arguing over trivialities, to the extent the joy of editing is sapped completely and replaced by endless stress. I'm glad the debate over the job titles turned out reasonably amicably in the end anyway. Wishing you a pleasant Sunday  — Amakuru (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trivial in itself, but it takes a lot of us volunteering on these trivial things to getting things looking half-way decent. But yeah, don't let it lead to stress. Your arguments got me to thinking that ITN is probably one of the rare places on WP that might have multiple items referring to modified job titles, with the risk of some ending up capitalized and others not. Funny, the few times I have brought something up at MOS, the response was that it doesnt happen often enough to merit making MOS bigger. Perhaps we consider circling back at ITN for a local standard, if this mix happens enough. Best. —Bagumba (talk) 11:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2024 February newsletter

The 2024 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with 135 participants. This is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2017.

Our current leader is newcomer Generalissima (submissions), who has one FA on John Littlejohn (preacher) and 10 GAs and 12 DYKs mostly on New Zealand coinage and Inuit figures. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:

As a reminder, competitors may submit work for the first round until 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February, and the second round starts 1 March. Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round; currently, competitors need at least 15 points to progress. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your close of RM for 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel

Hello. Six days ago, you closed the move request for 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel as "Not moved". I (uninvolved) disagree with your close and its rationale. While the majority of the participants were against the move, consensus is not determined by the number of votes for a particular side of the issue but, per WP:DETCON, ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. Not only had the proponents of the move shown evidences that "7 October attack(s)" is a WP:COMMONNAME, the opposers did not actually provide close to enough evidence for their assertions that the current title is a better one according the policies at Wikipedia:Article titles. They did not provide evidence that the current title is natural or recognizable, which is supposed to be determined by prevalence in English RS. Their only arguments with supporting evidence are the ones regarding precision and consistency, which are less important than, per Wikipedia:Article titles, how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. So, since the proponents provided more evidence, this should at least be closed as "no consensus" so that a user willing to do an exhaustive survey of English-language RS for the WP:COMMONNAME (like myself) could have a chance to reopen the discussion and participate with better evidence rather than "not moved" which precludes further discussion on the matter for at least a few months. StellarHalo (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 February 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #84399

feels hollow. Should I decline or restore TPA for appeal at WP:AN? Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joga RM

Hey, do you mind having another look at this matter, which is now at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 February#Joga (disambiguation)? I forgot to send an explicit ping the last time around, and ten days later it was closed without getting closure :) TIA. --Joy (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024 GAN backlog drive

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive:
  • On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded.
  • Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Impressionism

I drive-by noticed the thread at Randy Kryn's talk page. Due to recent testy disputation, I don't think he wants to hear from me right now, so I'll just post here instead).

For probably the first time in a while, I'm in agreement with RK, at least as to moves of this sort being controversial and needing full RM process. We've been capitalizing most of the major arts movements for so long that I'm certain lower-casing any of them would be a disputatious RM matter, Heck, we even had a lot of pushback about some film, music, and lit genres (I remember "western" in the US frontier sense being contentious; people seemed to confuse it with the capital-W "Western" of Western culture, despite a huge gulf in meaning. I also note that MOS:MUSIC refers to classical music with a lower-case c, but it is quite frequently rendered "Classical" in various articles here. There seems to be a lot of disagreement (even if it's presently just showing up in subtopical practice and not in debate).

Unless my thinkmeat is finally failing, I'm certain we formerly (somewhere in MoS, probably at MOS:CAPS) had a provision that major arts movements were to be capitalized. I'm not sure when that went away (must have been in one of my mostly-away periods), but it would explain (along with usual MOS:SIGCAPS issues) why there's so much arts-movement capitalization on here. Such an idea to capitalize arts movements across the board would be problematic for multiple reasons, including being an unexplained categorical exception to the lead principle of MOS:CAPS, conflicting more directly with MOS:MOVEMENT (covering movements of all kinds, generally), and being incompatible especially with MOS:GENRE, in that the distinction between an arts movement and an arts genre is often illusory at best, and primilary a matter of personal viewpoint (e.g. practitioners versus critics), or of rather random convention that varies by medium, and sometimes by age of the movement/genre, and/or by whether it is widespread or (at the artist notability level) primarily confined to a limited number of famous practictioners/adherents. There's also weirdness like Art Nouveau which is a French term and in French is rendered art nouveau; the capitalization in English is just habit formed by writing things like Romanticism and Impressionism. An especial goof up is that at Art Deco we have "Arts Décoratifs", wrongly imposing English capitalization on the original French phrase.

The only thing with echos of that old MoS material I can find is (without its own shortcut) Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Visual arts#Capitalization and art movements, but – aside from somehow wanting to see "Impressionism" in particular (why was that singled out??) – it is perhaps surprisingly noncomittal and even somewhat evidence-based, though the evidence is old (in the case of the block quote apparently obsolete), of unclear authority (why do we care what "zeal.com" says?), and in the block quote somewhat nonsensical, in that the examples are wild mixture of things that are movements, or general arts periods, or general periods of history that are typically given proper-name treatment (yet it lower-cases some of them!), or misc. adjectival proper names like Gothic and Islamic; and it inconsistently treats prefixes like pre-, among other issues (like the double-extra nonsense of wanting "Middle Ages" but "medieval" when these are synonymous). I can see why the source publication removed this material, and I don't know why we're still quoting it. Surely just a factor of no one doing any work on that page in a long time. I'm about to at least improve cross-referencing to other MoS sections of pertinence. I think a talk page discussion over there about overhauling that section is probably in order.

Anyway, the main point is you should expect a bunch of debate when it comes to things like lower-casing Impressionism. After all the drama about sports [d|D]rafts, ultimately fired up by someone's manual moving, I would urge caution. And Impressionism in particular is iffy, because this section at MOS:ART says to capitalize, though on the basis of what consensus of  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First Edit Day

Happy First Edit Day, Amakuru, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Ezra Cricket (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Maliner (talk) 11:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change of Darbhanga–New Delhi Amrit Bharat Express

I see that you have made the change of Anand Vihar Terminal to New Delhi in the title page. First and foremost, I'm not crying out loud, and I've made the change w.r.t the operational train running in the North and I'm working under the DRM of Northern Railways as an assistant. So revert back your entry and change to Darbhanga-Anand Vihar Terminal. For reference, do check out this:- [1] Sanjeev4125 (talk) 13:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru,
Why are you changing from Anand Vihar Terminal to New Delhi repeatedly and making the same mistake again? Have you seen it arriving at New Delhi instead of Anand Vihar Terminal? It's clearly mentioned that it arrives at Anand Vihar Terminal and yet you are changing to New Delhi. You get this clearly in your mind and change it to Anand Vihar Terminal. Sanjeev4125 (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sanjeev4125: thanks for your note and for the explanation of why this is correct. There have been large numbers of disruptive moves lately on some Indian transport articles, and I had thought this was one of them. I didn't realise that the Anand Vihar Terminal Amrit Bharat Express is actually not in New Delhi... I have moved the article as you requested. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru,
Thanks for making the change and if in doubt, check out in Google and if found correct, then make the changes. Thank you once again. Sanjeev4125 (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick William IV of Prussia

You closed the RM of Talk:Frederick William IV of Prussia against massive opposition. Given your comments on similar move requests at Amadeo I of Spain, Charles XI of Sweden Ranuccio I Farnese, Duke of Mantua, etc. do you really consider yourself an "uninvolved editor" to undertake such a closure? Walrasiad (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2024 March newsletter

The first round of the 2024 WikiCup ended at 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February. Everyone with at least 30 points moved on to Round 2, the highest number of points required to advance to the second round since 2014. Due to a six-way tie for the 64th-place spot, 67 contestants have qualified for Round 2.

The following scorers in Round 1 all scored more than 300 points:

In this newsletter, the judges would like to pay a special tribute to Vami_IV (submissions), who unfortunately passed away this February. At the time of his death, he was the second-highest-scoring competitor. Outside the WikiCup, he had eight other featured articles, five A-class articles, eight other good articles, and two Four Awards. Vami also wrote an essay on completionism, a philosophy in which he deeply believed. If you can, please join us in honoring his memory by improving one of the articles on his to-do list.

Remember that any content promoted after 27 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick William IV closure

Hi, Amakuru. I just noticed your closure at the RM for Frederick William IV of Prussia. I was surprised because I know you've recently weighed in in other RMs on this question (the removal of the country from the titles of articles on sovereigns) and have indicated that you hold a very clear position on this matter. Instances I'm aware of where we both commented are Francis Phoebus of Navarre [3], Charles XI of Sweden [4], and George X of Kartli [5]. In fact in the Phoebus RM you wrote, "The juggernaut is rolling on this one and, despite efforts to halt it, it will continue to roll." This doesn't suggest impartiality on this matter. As such, I'd like to ask that you please revert your closure and allow the Frederick William RM to be closed by an impartial and uninvolved editor. Thanks very much. ╠╣uw [talk] 02:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Walrasiad and Huwmanbeing: thanks both for your notes here on my talk page, and I'm responding to both of them here, as they say much the same thing. First of all, I disagree with you that there is anything at all controversial about this, or that there is any legitimate way to close this other than as moved. The guideline at WP:NCROY is crystal clear on this, with wording "Only use a territorial designation (e.g. country) when disambiguation is needed" and this was based on the result of the recent RFC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#RfC: Should the guideline explicitly accept Elizabeth II, Carl XVI Gustaf, etc titles?. Furthermore, it was widely acknolwedged that the previous wording of NCROY, mandating of Prussia etc. was in contradiction to wider policies including WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME. If you have issues with the wording of the guideline, or with the close of the aforementioned RFC, then you should take that up at the talk page of that guideline, or discuss with the RFC closer. To oppose its implementation at individual RFCs, with a rationale essentially disputing the whole premise of the guideline, however, is not a valid viewpoint and the established WP:CONSENSUS-building process at WP, and in particular WP:NOTAVOTE, rightly downplays such opposition. Anyway, having said all that, you've both asserted that I'm too WP:INVOLVED in the matter to make a close, having previously !voted to support such moves and I'll defer to that opinion, even though I don't necessarily think there's much controversy here. I've reopened the discussion and reformulated my close rationale as a support !vote instead. Cheers and happy editing  — Amakuru (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your close does not address the primary topic concerns raised in the RM. I do not think it can be taken as given that opposers accepted that necessary element of the NCROY-based argument for moving. Srnec (talk) 14:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec: with the exception of the Frederick William II case, the primary topic question is already settled. Frederick William III and Frederick William IV already redirect to those relevant pages, and have done for aeons. So there's no case to answer there, at least unless a move discussion is held at the relevant disambiguation pages (and it seems highly unlikely that any of the minor dukes listed at Frederick William III (disambiguation) would usurp the Prussian monarch from the PTOPIC spot).  — Amakuru (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "15557/Darbhanga - Anand Vihar Terminal Amrit Bharat Express - Darbhanga to Anand Vihar Terminal ECR/East Central Zone - Railway Enquiry". indiarailinfo.com. Retrieved 2024-02-26.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amakuru&oldid=1210824470"