User talk:Colin M

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Colin M, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Ironholds (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Dindon. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Dindon~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

23:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed

This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk)

12:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Your help desk question

You have a response.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rats, Lice and History, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages French and German (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion about capitalization at Delgamuukw

Hi! I saw you changed the capitalization at Delgamuukw. I started a discussion about this here. Sancho 06:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

GAR

Thanks for your comments at WP:GAR. It is an often neglected area, so having some well thought out points made is very useful. AIRcorn (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

My pleasure! I only recently started doing (individual) GA reviews, so I figured reading other people's comments at GAR would be helpful in calibrating my understanding of the GA criteria to match the community consensus. Colin M (talk) 21:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

History

The term "infobox wars" was coined in 2005, and many carry wounds, it seems. Mine date from 2013. Much ado about almost nothing: we tried to implement the new {{infobox opera}}, and faced resistence. By now, the infobox is transcluded 1022 times. I guess we won ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Infobox wars, eh? It's fascinating all the little controversies and debates that go into making the sausage that is Wikipedia. I would legitimately love to read a book about this kind of thing. Colin M (talk) 23:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

How about writing that book. - I met these wars in 2012 only, - there was peace in the quiet corner of musical compositions where I worked for the first years here. Then on Bach's birthday in 2013, I entered the drama zone ;) - Now I could almost find it amusing if only we hadn't lost a very competent user over that discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Emotion: Side B/GA1

Hello,

I would like to let you know that the user you are reviewing this Ep for has not edited in a long time on wikipedia. Do you mind if I step up and do the necessary changes in order to try to meet GA requirements? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

@MarioSoulTruthFan: thank you for the kind offer! Sure, that would be very much appreciated. FYI, I actually posted on the noticeboards of a couple wikiprojects asking for help, and got an offer from Brandt Luke Zorn, though I haven't heard from them on the review page yet. I'm happy if either or both of you are able to help out. (There's no rule that says there should be exactly one editor responding to GA review comments) Colin M (talk) 15:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Good Article review of Bara (genre)

Hi, I've responded to your edits on the good article review for Bara (genre). Apologies for the delay in getting to them. Thanks for taking the time to reivew the article! Morgan695 (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again for taking the time to review the article. I really appreciate it! Morgan695 (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Precious

"Yay, new articles!"

Thank you for quality articles, beginning in 2007 with trampolinist Jason Burnett to The Explorers Club (play) in 2019, for GA reviewing, such as Why Did You Do That?, for uploading cover art, for "It gives valuable information about the topic in a succinct form.", for a user page decorated with the enigmatic American opssum in baby grand piano, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Aw shucks, thank you for the kind words! It means a lot. Colin M (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, love it! I gave some succinct form info to Georg Katzer, - interesting and predictable what happened. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Killer whale

Check out this revised move discussion. Interstellarity (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Grandparents of charles V

I'm inclined to have it in the lead because a major point about Charles V is that he had four inheritances derived from his four grandparents. So we explain why he had Spain (castile + aragon) and Austria + Burgundy within the HRE. Otherwise people read and don't get that he was the product of a dinasty marriage between two people themselves products of dinasty marriages. It's pretty common for people to mistakenly assume that he got Austria directly from his father or that he got the Netherlands via spain. Barjimoa (talk) 10:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Reddit

Hi there, Colin M. Happy Friday! I updated my Commercial activity draft over at the Reddit Talk page based on your feedback. Pinging you here in case you didn't see it. Let me know if you have any questions. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi again! In case you hadn't seen, I wanted to let you know that I've posted a new request on the Reddit Talk page. This time, I'm hoping to clean up and improve the organization of the Controversies section. Would you have some time to take a look? Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 01:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

June 2019

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Western African Ebola virus epidemic. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. being disruptive on talkpage for no clear reason, Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa: So this is interesting:

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them.

Because I feel like that's literally what I've been trying to do over and over. Look at this talk page section where I'm basically talking to myself for two weeks. Key phrases include:

• I'm hoping you can explain in more detail
• If you want to revert my bold change, that's fine, but that should give way to a discussion
• please provide a justification
• Let's discuss rather than edit war.
• Let's just discuss it. If we still can't reach consensus after discussing, we can seek a third opinion.

I would still love to discuss this template thing, but you need to pick up the (metaphorical) pen. I've been pinging you on the talk page and trying to get a discussion going, but other than one sentence 2 weeks ago, you haven't said a word. Colin M (talk) 00:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Juan de Cartagena, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Castile (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

TonyBallioni (talk) 05:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Que Sera, Sera (Whatever Will Be, Will Be), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Man Who Knew Too Much (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Close and with a cigar

Thank you. Rarely have seen a more clear, fair or efficient close. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words :). Hope others involved will see it the same way. That was actually my first time doing any kind of formal close, so I was a bit nervous about it. Colin M (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. We'll probably get a new one opening there before long. I expect my thanks above will be seen as "post-close retrospective canvassing". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Truth Hurts moves

Hey, I noticed you did some moves involving Truth Hurts and other articles with the same (disambiguated) title. Right now the bare phrase redirects to Truth Hurts (singer) (with no hatnote link to dab page). Based on the stats you cited in your edit summaries, I'm guessing this is not what you intended. But not sure if you meant for it to go to the Lizzo song or the dab page. Colin M (talk) 00:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Please see comment on Talk:Truth Hurts (singer). Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Amadeus

Thanks for the breath of sanity at the Amadeus RFD. I don't understand what concept of "primary topic" the others are relying upon. --В²C ☎ 00:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Things are looking up!. --В²C ☎ 17:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Colin

I am trying to introduce the reasons why you have to use the name of Magellan-Elcano Expedition, but when I give it to you, my text is not entered.

Is there a problem in the talk box? In other discussions it does let me publish what I have written, but in this case no. Jacob34T (talk) 10:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the Talk box "The name of the article should be changed" is somehow blocked.

If you can fix it or unlock it please do it. As a summary I would like to give the arguments as to why "Magellan-Elcano expedition" is a more correct name because it is the official name agreed by Portugal and Spain, and presented at UNESCO.

But it doesn't seem that that particular Talk box lets me enter text. Thanks in advance Colin. Jacob34T (talk) 11:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jacob34T: Hi Jacob, there shouldn't be anything preventing you from adding to that talk section. You might want to try the help desk? If you describe the steps you're taking when you try to edit the page, and what happens, someone should be able to help you out. Colin M (talk) 17:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

When I send the message Wikipedia tells me that there is an error and that it cannot be saved. Jacob34T (talk) 15:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

If you prefer, I can give you a summary of what I want to send. Portugal and Spain have agreed on the name to refer to this trip and presented it to UNESCO to be considered a world heritage site. And I have also tried to send writers of different languages who also use the Magellan-Elcano terminology.

A greeting. Jacob34T (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

ASICS vs Asics

Hi Colin, It would seem that in the discussion to change ASICS to Asics, really only one source was used to support the move. And while it is a great source (the NY Times), it was by one source. If you look at most trade magazines (Outside Magazine, Fitness Magazine, Hype Beast, Competitor Magazine, Believe In The Run, Rock n Roll Marathon series, RoadTrailRun.com etc) or industry events and shows such as The Running Event in Austin Texas every year, and really countless other sources, you will find that it is correctly ASICS not Asics. If you go to their Facebook page, Twitter, and web site it's ASICS, ASICS, ASICS. You wouldn't write "Nasa", we always write NASA. It is even mentioned in the main ASICS article that it is an acronym or "initialism". Whether or not a certain percentage of the population is aware of this should be a moot point. Accuracy is what should matter. Track-Vol (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey @Track-Vol:, so a few thoughts:

• If you think the move was incorrect, you're welcome to open another WP:RM. Sometimes people get grouchy about RMs that are opened soon after a previous RM on the same topic was closed, but if you have some new information that you think was missing from the previous discussion, a new RM should be fine. I for one would be happy to consider any new evidence with an open mind.
  • However, the relevant policy, WP:TITLETM says to use standard formatting unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark, which is a pretty high threshold to meet. If you do decide to open an RM, I would think about how you can demonstrate that "ASICS" is unambiguously the most common spelling. (Reviewing Google News just now, it seemed to me like a pretty close call)
• How official company sources spell the name is of pretty low importance (for the purposes of naming). See WP:OFFICIALNAME and MOS:TM.
• The acronym angle is interesting. But AFAIK, we don't have a policy that says if a title is an acronym, it must be rendered in all caps. Hamas, Nasdaq, and Radar are examples that show this. I do think it's relevant that most people aren't aware that it's an acronym - maybe only insofar as this makes them less likely to write it in full-caps, and ultimately affects RS usage.
• Setting aside the title for a moment, my reading of MOS:TM is that fanciful formatting is even less tolerated in the body than it is in the title. Whereas WP:TITLETM says "only use the trademarked spelling if it's demonstrably the most common in independent RS", MOS:TM says "Look at the styles used by independent RS and pick the one that most closely resembles standard English". There's no question that "Asics" is commonly used in RS (even if it's not necessarily the most common), so I think the running text of the article should definitely use "Asics". Colin M (talk) 02:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I have added the informations

I have added the missing informations of the leade of Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor in the article. Barjimoa (talk) 10:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Help with a round robin page swap

Colin, I am attempting to revert IHeartRadio Canada to the previous name Bell Media Radio that ViperSnake151 moved in May 2019, but I can't get it to work.

I use the Draft namespace and enter the in the value "Move/Bell Media Radio", correct?

Can you take a look and possibly do it for me?

I've issued an RfC on the Talk Page and I'd like to revert to the previous name pending outcome of RfC, as BarrelProof did with Canadian Tire Financial Services. BarrelProof, feel free to "chime in" or take the lead here.

Thanks, Doug — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmehus (talk • contribs) 00:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

New message from Tamravidhir

Hello, Colin M. You have new messages at Talk:Surrogacy.
Message added 16:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tamravidhir (talk) 16:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Please stop removing bold at CTV Drama Channel

You're obviously new to this website, but it's standard protocol to list former and current channel names in bold on an article. Learn the rules and stop being disruptive.MarcoPolo250 (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@MarcoPolo250: If you think I'm a newbie, you shouldn't WP:BITE me!

You're right, I'm not familiar with this rule. Could you provide a link to where it's documented? You might be thinking of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting#Article_title_terms, but that only applies to the first occurrence of the name in the article. In this case, CTV Drama Channel and Bravo are already bolded in the intro. Colin M (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		With cordial thanks.Niggle1892 (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Niggle1892: Thanks! It was really heartening to see the community rally around saving those articles. And I applaud you for your equanimity throughout the whole process. I'm not sure I could have kept in such good spirits if I was blindsided with 50 AfD nominations! Colin M (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

PLURALPT and DIFFCAPS

I have gathered some examples of DIFFCAPS at User:Crouch, Swale/DIFFCAPS and some examples of PLURALPTS at User:Crouch, Swale/Plural PT. As can be seen there are cases like Cricket where another entity is primary for the singular but the plural redirects to the singular of the common noun, notice that while "crickets" in plural form appears over 100 times in Cricket (insect), "crickets" appears 0 times in Cricket, similarly a Google image search for "cricket" returns only the sport but for "crickets" it returns only the insect. With PLURALPT while I agree readers and editors are more likely to use the singular I'd still suggest that except in clear cut cases its usually not a good idea to make something else primary since at minimum PT#2 would likely favour the noun. WP:PLURALPT anyway gives the example of Cars redirecting to Car despite the existence of the film and other media. In any case the guideline does suggest that the article titled "Car" is a mull match for "Cars" on the other hand while Brown might be a contender for "Browns" I don't think its a full match but actually Shades of brown is a better link (but not necessarily primary).

On the other hand DIFFCAPS does seem to suggest that unlike plurals, topics that are not proper nouns are by default not full matches for terms that have subsequent capitals as long as the noun isn't correctly or commonly written in the upper case. In other words unlike the cars example, Duck sauce and Duck Sauce are not considered to be primary over each other since only 1 is a proper noun. On the other hand if (as you noted here) the lower case is very popular/significant its probably safer to have a DAB at the upper case. Indeed people could still think the general concept will be at Total War for example but given as you noted the TV series gets over double views it seems unlikely most people searching with a capital "W" want the general concept.

Sea urchin is an interesting example since Sea Urchin redirects there and there is Sea Urchin (disambiguation) however none of the others on the DAB appear to be called plain "Sea Urchin" so that's probably correct. But Sea urchins redirects to the animal but Sea Urchins is about the TV series which seems correct since while the animal is a full match for the plural, its not for the capital "U". Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: that all sounds pretty reasonable to me. Was this prompted by any particular discussion, or just something that's been on your mind?

btw, if you're interested in expanding either of those lists, perhaps I can plug my own little tool: RMStats. One thing it can do is list RMs in which a certain policy shortcut has been mentioned in the discussion. So https://tools.wmflabs.org/rmstats/policies/WP:DIFFCAPS will give you a wealth of examples of DIFFCAPS cases, and similarly for https://tools.wmflabs.org/rmstats/policies/WP:PLURALPT (the data hasn't been updated in a couple months, so it won't have very recent cases). Colin M (talk) 17:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't prompted by any discussion in particular though you're comments with regarding Dockers might be a point. Yes indeed I've been looking at that tool, funnily enough I tried to find it about a week ago by looking at the what links here from the talk page namespace to Bird Box for you're post and after finding the tool from putting "tool" into my browser I found the post. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Cool! It makes me very happy to hear that at least one (other) person has found it useful :) Colin M (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks yes indeed I have found it useful. Would you agree with the point that the plural form of topics that would be at the plural form (if WP used plurals) are always full matches for the purpose of PT determination (even though we can discount for people expecting them to be singular) but different capitalization are not treated as full matches for the purpose of PT determination? An interesting way to see is if you look at Commons categories, for example Commons:Category:Bridges and Category:Bridges are about the structure but Commons:Category:Bridge and Category:Bridge are DAB pages. But note that category redirect don't work that well anyway since you have to click through them anyway so DABs are usually preferred anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Hm, I don't think I would agree with that. Or at least I would say you could just as easily switch it around and say the same thing about diffcaps, i.e.

the title case form of topics that would be at the title case form (if WP used title case) are always full matches for the purpose of PT determination (even though we can discount for people expecting them to be sentence case)

It's not immediately obvious to me whether, on average, the strength of users' expectations that titles will be in sentence case is greater or less than the strength of their expectations that titles will be in the singular form. In general, for a given topic at title "Foo bar", I would say that only a small fraction of users seeking that topic will search for "Foo bars" or "Foo Bar", and that should be taken into account when determining primary-ness vs. another topic which is very likely to be searched for in the title case or pluralized form. Colin M (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

That is a reasonable counter point, indeed some readers would expect Title Case, but the guidance at PLURALPT says that plurals "normal"(ly) redirect to the singular with with SMALLDETAILS that the're "usually sufficient" (I wouldn't give too much wight to Friendly Fire since that seems to have been a result prior to clarify there) but indeed we should be careful about putting an obscure topic at a Title Case name since it could still astonish people. The Green Card case and Fireworks are examples of possible upper case and where we have chosen to use the plural. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The reason that plurals normally redirect to the singular is that usually there does not exist any topic that would want to occupy the plural title. The sentence immediately after that quote is: For instance, Chairs is a redirect page, which takes readers directly to Chair. That's because there's nothing listed at Chair (disambiguation) which is called "Chairs". It's probably also true that for most sentence case titles, the title case version redirects to the same place, for the same reason - because if someone searches for, e.g. List of Waterfalls, there's no other topic than List of waterfalls that they could possibly be searching for.

"Plurals normally redirect to the singular" is not the same thing as saying that if there's a topic whose ideal title is "Foobar" and another topic whose ideal title is "Foobars" then usually the first topic will be primary for both titles. (By "ideal title" I mean the title we would put that article at if disambiguation weren't a concern)

btw Green Card is a slightly unusual case in that some non-trivial fraction of RS do capitalize it, so it's a less ideal candidate for WP:DIFFCAPS disambiguation than a phrase that is obviously just a common noun phrase (e.g. sea urchins vs. Sea Urchins). Colin M (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes that's the case for chairs but the "textbook" example given for primary topics is "Cars" that still redirects to Car despite the film getting 46,791 (compared to 73,884 for "Car") and other media with that name [[1]] on the other hand the textbook example for DIFFCAPS was Red Meat despite the fact that Red meat got over 71 times the views and there's other media with that name. Now I think with Cars it would probably indeed be better per the guideline to retarget "Cars" to Car (disambiguation) (or make it a separate DAB) given the quote about readers being used to using singular but the fact that "Car" is primary is good evidence that we usually do redirect the plural to the singular even when there's media with that name. The point about "ideal title" is also interesting, this was debated in cases like Worcester and Norfolk where it was argued that because of WP:USPLACE the American cities are at their best titles and therefore reduces conflict with the plain name.

Green Card shows an example of where a term is sometimes capitalized and therefore could be considered a full match. However for Friendly fire it isn't written with a capital 2nd "F" at all in the article text while the plural form appears 77 times in the article Car. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation RM discussion

Since you participated in this discussion about disambiguation pages just shy of two months ago, would you be willing to voice your thoughts on this move discussion that deals with the same issue? I believe you would have something to say about it. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 19:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for climatic changes suggestion

I've gone for that one and launched the proposal at Talk:climate change#Renaming this article to solve confusion. Keeping my fingers crossed that the discussion will be constructive and lead to a conclusion. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank You thank you

Sorry, I couldn't resist the temptation to thank you for the change on Thank You. It was a solid edit. —ShelfSkewed Talk 05:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Well that's a new one. Thanks :) Colin M (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

climate change rename proposal

Greetings, thanks for your comment at the RM proposal. If the proposal carries (making "climate change" a redirect to the new title Climate change (general concept)) we do plan to later list "climate change" at WP:Redirects for discussion)

I noticed in your comment you seem to agree the status quo has a PRIMARYTOPIC problem, yet you describe the parenthetical disambiguation that would solve that issue as "unnecessary". Could you please elaborate? Specifically, if you think there is a ptopic problem, why characterize parenthetical disambiguation that solves this problem as "unnecessary"? Since the answer may benefit the closer, please consider appending some clarification to your earlier notvote at article talk. Thanks! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for such a speedy update at the main thread! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Summary table for Renaming Climate change article

Hi, in my own userspace I have started a table in which I am trying to super-succinctly summarize the Not-Votes and perspectives that have been raised. This is a work in progress, but I have at least finished my initial data-entry for what you've said. If you would like to me change anything, please use the talk page attached the table. Thanks! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Re: "A Star Is Born tracks" template - not needed?

Really there are rules about when you can add a track list template to song's infobox? I didn't knew! :O infsai (dyskusja) 21:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

How can I use your fork of JWB?

On the talk page for JWB, I saw that you've made a fork of JWB with a function to get pages from searching for content within them, stored at User:Colin M/scripts/JWB annotated.js. How can I use this script? It would be great to have for the bot I am trying to get approved (and am pretty sure will be approved in some form) that is designed to edit links to specific sites on pages. How can I use this script? Will it work if I just copy and paste the code into Special:MyPage/common.js? Thanks! DemonDays64 | Tell me if I'm doing something wrong :P 23:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

JWB tells users to put a thing loading User:Joeytje50/JWB.js/load.js on common.js—apparently it is a necessary page for using the script. Could you please make User:Colin M/scripts/JWB annotated.js/load.js so people can use your script easily? Thanks! DemonDays64 | Tell me if I'm doing something wrong :P 23:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@DemonDays64: The loader I was using for testing my fork is at User:Colin M/scripts/JWB annotated.js/loader.js. (Though my intention was not to maintain it as a stand-alone alternative - I'm still hoping Joeytje50 will merge it into JWB when they have some time.) Colin M (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Colin M: ok great!! While I understand it’s not really something I should rely on, it will be great for loading lists for my bot! When I’m at my computer I’ll get it running and try it out. Thanks!! DemonDays64 | Tell me if I'm doing something wrong :P 20:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Page Mover

Hello, Colin M. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! jni^{(talk)(delete)} 17:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Canvassing

You may want to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of lists of lists (6th nomination). I am sure the article will be kept, and think it does no harm, although it is fairly useless. But I was hoping some new arguments in a favor of lists-of-lists would be given. So far, I just see "lists are useful". Aymatth2 (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Sounds

What do you make of Sounds (RFD)? In this case I changed the target to the DAB from the audible meaning which was reverted. Category:Sounds was about the geographical meaning before I filed a CFDS. The category for the audible meaning is at Category:Sound despite the default use of plurals in the category namespace (which means that even if WP used the plural form in the article space the audible meaning still wouldn't include the "s"). The RFD was closed as keep redirecting to the audible meaning. It probably not the same as orange and brown (as noted in the Ravens RM) but indeed can still be known in the plural form (when sound is coming from different places for example). It can also be pointed out that the audible meaning is very common while the geographical meaning is probably less well known even in Scotland. What do you think? Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: I would agree with targeting it to the DAB in this case, though for a slightly different reason. As the IP editor in that RfD said, there are a number of incoming links to that redirect (61 of them in mainspace), however I don't think they actually checked them, since most of them are actually mistargeted. IMO this is a strong indicator of a WP:NOPRIMARY situation. The most common intended target of these links is actually Sounds (magazine), though I saw at least one intended for Sound (geography). And the ones that are correctly referring to Sound are, in my view, often instances of overlinking. Colin M (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I've cleaned up all the links, there were 30 for the audible meaning (many of which I delinked) but 31 for the magazine! There was only 1 for the geographical meaning, the IP had probably not noticed (just like I hadn't) because most of those articles are about music (which is what the magazine works on). Certainly if this was to come up again this would be a good point. On one side the number of errors is worrying and certainly points to no primary topic but on the other side the audible meaning probably shouldn't be commonly linked (as you have noted) but that's because its known/significant. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Page Move/Re-Name Assistance

Hello - I am reaching out since I know you made the page name change for the Amir Khusrau article after I had put the request. A new request has been placed on the Swaminarayan (spiritual tradition) page to move/rename it to Swaminarayan Sampradaya. Could you please assist in the move? Thank you! Apollo1203 (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Apollo1203: once an RM discussion reaches the 'elapsed/backlog' stage (more than 7 days since it was opened, or relisted - your RM is just a day away from this), it usually will be picked up fairly promptly by an uninvolved closer, so it's usually better to just wait for the process to play out, rather than actively seeking out someone to close it. (I'm sure you didn't intend it this way, but you should be aware that seeking out a close from someone who previously closed a discussion in your favour can even be perceived as a form of canvassing.) Colin M (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Makes complete sense, thank you for the guidance!

Apollo1203 (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Closed Move Request for Talk:Silver Lake College

Hi Colin, Happy New Year. I came across the previous name change discussion trying to find Silver Lake College and found out it changed names. I was about to make the necessary move but noticed on the talk page that there was a fairly recent (Nov 2019) Move Request that you closed with a decision not to move. It seems that decision goes against the naming conventions for WP:NC-UNI and other standard move rationale for naming reasons but I wanted to reach out and see if you had any other thoughts? It might also be possible that things have changed since the university initially made the name change? It seems like it is all-in on the new name and there are good external sources that reflect its new WP:COMMONNAME. Bhockey10 (talk) 05:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bhockey10. The first point of WP:NC-UNI is Colleges and universities should always be named using the common (not necessarily official) name of the institution. The justification given in the nomination of that RM was just that "the college's name has changed" (i.e. the official name has changed). No evidence was provided for the proposed name being the WP:COMMONNAME, nor was the claim even made. As the closer, I can only look at the information that's been presented as part of the RM - it wouldn't be appropriate for me to do my own research to decide whether the move should be performed. Unfortunately, the nom didn't make a policy-based argument for the move, and there were zero comments on the RM, even after it was relisted. So my close was more a finding of "insufficient support to justify the move". It looks like someone has since boldly moved the page. It arguably should have gone through another RM, but I don't blame the mover for just doing it given the lack of participation in the last RM. Colin M (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Colin, I appreciate the RE. I was planning to re-list it for move after hearing the rationale for closing the first one. I do see that the original one was not presented with much rationale and since moving articles is complex and shouldn't be taken lightly, I appreciate that you remained impartial based on the evidence provided. Common with small colleges, the talk page didn't get much traffic for anyone to provide further reasoning. In this case, the university accompanied the name change with a full re-branding so there was sufficient evidence per WP:NC-UNI first point on WP:COMMONNAME so it appears that's why another user skipped the RM process. Happy New Year and Happy Editing! --Bhockey10 (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)