User talk:Dekimasu


I am always very busy, and I can't edit as often as I'd like. However, I do check Wikipedia from time to time. If you leave a message here, I will notice it eventually.
I try to accept criticism of my edits and responsibility for my comments, and we should be able to resolve any editing disputes amicably. Feel free to express your opinion or ask for my help.
I have an archive of older topics from this page. It can be accessed here.

Page move

Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for creating the discussion and presenting this evidence. Dekimasuよ! 15:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Dekimasu!

Happy New Year!

Dekimasu,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
-Nahal^(T) 23:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Happy New Year. Dekimasuよ! 06:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed RM

Per this close, it's interesting that moving one redirect over another to the same article is perfectly OK to do manually, but is considered malformed by the bot. The move would have accomplished exactly what was intended; the redirects are not "identical" as you said, because one of them appears in a category and the other one doesn't. Don't you think it makes sense to use RM for this, to rename the item in the category? It seemed to me like the most sensible way to get some eyes on the question. Dicklyon (talk) 05:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dicklyon. There is basically never a need to move a redirect manually either, though; I wouldn't say that it is perfect OK to do manually, but rather that it is basically a null result since it will create a double redirect that's fixed by a bot soon after. Categories can be modified manually without performing moves that would confound page histories. I understand your point about centralized discussion, particularly since there are regulars around RM who have set understandings of the underlying issues, but categories on redirects are still more the realm of WP:RFD than WP:RM. Dekimasuよ! 06:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, when I wanted to fix the styling of a redirect that shows up in a category, I usually used move rather than the alternative of cutting the category tag from one and pasting it into the other, as I thought that would be regarded as a "cut-and-paste move". I'll just drop that idea. Dicklyon (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting at Talk:Mirroring (psychology)

You have relisted the move request at Talk:Mirroring (psychology). Two support and two oppose. One oppose is based on a refuted claim ("No primary topic"), the other is invalid per WP:NOTNEEDED. How does your close mesh with WP:NHC? Paradoctor (talk) 12:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting is not a close. It presents a further opportunity for both current and new participants to continue ongoing discussion. The discussion can still be evaluated by any uninvolved closer at any time. Best, Dekimasuよ! 12:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Put a different way, relisting could be taken as an invitation to build stronger evidence of consensus in favor of a certain close. Dekimasuよ! 13:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you're right about a relisting not being a close, of course. I still don't see the problem with not closing as accepted, though. After discounting invalid opposes, only support !votes remain. Paradoctor (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Studios Fox (and Living Capital)

For what it's worth, I generally agree with what you said when you pinged me at Talk:20th Century Studios#Requested move 17 January 2020, I just got to the discussion too late to comment in it before it was closed. We should usually wait for usage in sources to change. That said, such moves are usually actually harmless as long as redirects work and the lead is clear, unless there's something potentially very reader-confusing about the case (e.g. the Kraft others instances in which the old company name remains the dominant brand/service name and all that's happened is a background change of the name of the legal entity, or a merger into a different one). I doubt that 20th Century Studios versus 20th Century Fox has much in the way os major user-confusion potential. If Apple Inc. changes its name tomorrow to Global iDevices Inc., then we'd have a different kind of case, because they'd continue to be referred to as Apple by almost everyone for several years, except in financial news, etc. It's been my experience that it's often actually easier to move barely-notable company names shortly after such a corporate name change, because COMMONNAME barely applies due to the lack of much coverage at all. I.e., there's not much RECOGNIZABILITY to even consider. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SMcCandlish. I don't like the idea of following process for its own sake, but it seems clear that editors should be notified they aren't exempt from naming conventions and policies when someone (who wasn't me, as I didn't even oppose the move!) has already objected. I understand the recognizability argument as well, but it seems like anachronisms should be avoided too. For example, what's going on at List of 20th Century Fox films (1935–1999) is probably not worth keeping up with, but the article was moved without discussion, reverted (by me, citing WP:RMUM), a move discussion was initiated, and then the page was moved again without warning to a title not referenced in that discussion with the edit summary "The name of the studio was already 20th Century Studios, not 20th Century Fox anymore." Now, were any of the movies from 1935–1999 made by "20th Century Studios"? No. But moving everything immediately seems to be a priority for some. The page should be put under move protection but at this point I am probably considered involved (score at least one for process, I guess?). Dekimasuよ! 06:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, toward that objection-end, see also the three ongoing related RMs: Talk:List of 20th Century Fox films (2000–present)#Requested move 19 January 2020 • Talk:20th Century Fox Television#Requested move 19 January 2020 • Talk:List of 20th Century Fox theatrical animated features#Requested move 19 January 2020. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I also didn't notice your "living text" clarification at Talk:Das Kapital, Volume I#Requested move 6 December 2019 until after closure. Thanks for the pointer to the legal sense of a similar phrase, which I had not encountered (or remembered encountering), despite being a non-lawyer steeped professionally in several areas of US law as a policy analyst. It's a good usage to know, even if it's not terribly common. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is requested

at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Community view before Friday.

Only 100 or so words. It should be fun and serious at the same time.

All the best,

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added one, hope it is worthwhile. Dekimasuよ! 11:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

nCoV

Of course you're right - a vaccine is not a treatment! Boud (talk) 12:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the sections are finally back together again! Dekimasuよ! 03:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"A Line (Blue) (Los Angeles Metro)" listed at Requested moves

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the requested move of A Line (Blue) (Los Angeles Metro) and other Metro pages. Since you had some involvement with pages related to A Line (Blue) (Los Angeles Metro) and others, you might want to participate in the discussion if you wish to do so. Lexlex (talk) 11:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification. Although I do not have an opinion on this request, I have had to reinstate the stable page titles for now under WP:RMUM. Please note that when there is previous discussion of the titles on the talk page, that is an indication that moves are not uncontroversial and should not be undertaken boldly. It is good that you initiated a move discussion, but the pages should not have been moved to the intermediate titles per WP:RMCM. Dekimasuよ! 14:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting input in resolution at 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak

Greetings. Not sure if this is the correct channel or whether if this is an appropriate request, but I've navigated to your page through Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and the "Want to skip the drama? Check the Recently Active Admins list for admins who may be able to help directly" option. As I've noticed your activity on 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak and thereby be fit to understand the context of the discussion, I've like to request your input in an informal DRR/3 for a stonewalled discussion thread there, if possible. The link to that is here: 1 Best. Sleath56 (talk) 06:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sleath56, sorry that I was not able to respond to this in a timely fashion. The virus article has been taking up most of my editing time recently, and the scale of what needs to be done at the outbreak page appears to be exponentially greater (and the political issues are certainly far more problematic there). I hope this has been taken care of to your satisfaction in the meantime, but I don't think I can cover this area at the moment. Best, Dekimasuよ! 03:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response and no worries, it's understandable. I was under the impression the issue was resolved, but its reappeared under the same premise. The invitation still stands if you find time later on, as I believe the issue can only be resolved through a third party DRR/3 at this point. Regards. Sleath56 (talk) 06:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks. At least I was around to catch this, which apparently put a lot of stress on the servers by filling the pool queue, something I haven't seen in years. I did a small amount of work on the lede but it seems clear that bloat and the number of editors involved are a major factor over there. Dekimasuよ! 06:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for copyright work on Coronavirus

Thanks for your cleanup on Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV). The same editor you cleaned up after also put 4 large edits in 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak that might contain similar material. Can you skim them for copyright violations? oldest, #2, #3, and the most recent. These were all made between 05:25, 3 February 2020 and 10:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello davidwr, I had actually flagged this here since I wasn't able to take care of it myself at the time, and based upon the comments from another admin it seems to have been taken care of in some form. Thank you for keeping an eye out for this. Dekimasuよ! 03:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Free flow of information

Dear Dekimasu,

I appreciate your input. However, what you have been doing regarding the coronavirus webpages is a clear obstruction of free flow of information. I don't know your particular field of study. However, I can reassure you that there are no available review articles on the novel coronavirus at the moment. The publication added is a good source of information and blocking other people's access to this source does not make sense in any way.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by StatWikiped (talk • contribs) 07:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

StatWikiped, given that you are inputting these sources in different articles (not only pertaining to the coronavirus) that contain a small number of authors in common, it appears that you may have an undeclared conflict of interest. Per that Wikipedia behavioral guideline, WP:SELFCITE, and WP:REFSPAM, if you are associated with these articles, you should disclose your conflict or interest and avoid editing associated articles directly. Adding references to the articles can be requested in such cases on the talk page. If the sources are essential, then someone who is unassociated with them can add them. This is similar to a small amount of peer review to establish that the sources you are citing are relevant and reliable. If you are unwilling to do this because your intent is to add particular sources of information that you are connected to, then that is against the ideals of Wikipedia. Dekimasuよ! 08:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, to be clear, I would be likely to support readdition of the source to the "Further reading" section of Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) if the request were made on the talk page in this fashion and the question of affiliation answered; I note that you did not reply to this question at your talk page earlier. Dekimasuよ! 08:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the clarification, Dekimasu. I have no COI. However, since this issue was raised by you, I will not edit any related pages you mentioned and will let other Wikipedia authors contribute to the page. BTW, I don't know what talk page you are referring to. Please send me the link.StatWikiped (talk) 08:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page would be the talk page of the article into which you are seeking to place the reference. Thank you for answering the question about conflict of interest. Can you see how it would seem to be an attempt at search engine optimization if you add a number of different papers with authors in common as your first additions to Wikipedia, and add cites only without supplementing article text? Dekimasuよ! 04:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar!

		The Bio-star
		Thank you so much for your tireless and high quality contributions to 2019 novel coronavirus Mvolz (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hear hear! — Amakuru (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Dekimasuよ! 01:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

corona thingy

@Amakuru, Doc James, and BD2412: Hi. Kindly excuse the title for this discussion. As you are aware, most of the articles directly related to the 2019 coronavirus are having move/merge/split discussions every day. Is there any way to make all these articles consistent with 2019 novel coronavirus, and split the current 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak to reflect one article regarding outbreak in Wuhan, and China; and other article about the activity of coronavirus in rest of the world? —usernamekiran (talk) 13:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Urggh, thanks for the message username Kiran although to be honest I'm getting a bit tired of these endless move, merge and split requests myself. It would be nice to just let things stay where they are for a whole and reassess when the dust has settled a little. Your proposal is an interesting one, although I'm a bit sceptical myself - the outbreak in China, and that in the rest of the world, are inexorably linked, so unless the article gets over long and a child article on the China-specific cases us spawned, I'm not sure I'd go with that at this time. — Amakuru (talk) 13:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would support 2019 novel coronavirus Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru, even though I have not been participating a lot, I am actually irritated becuase of these requests :D But you are right, we should wait for a while. Thanks for the response guys. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have been holding up pretty well, but it is very frustrating that a significant percentage of editors ignore WP:OFFICIAL and WP:NAMECHANGES and write "support per official name". Dekimasuよ! 05:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a new set of requests was closed before I got back to this. Thanks for writing.

There is an article on the outbreak in Wuhan and China: Mainland China during the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak. I am not sure about the "rest of the world", but as an example, I trimmed the Australia section of the main article significantly because it was very bloated, and it looks like all of the material I meticulously cut out has been reintroduced and more. (Do we need "a meat producer in New South Wales reporting to have already witnessed a 10% drop in their orders" in 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak? Of course not. The idea that it's a significant detail is almost offensive, really.) And I simply don't have the time that would be required to help protect the main article from bloat, so I have been concentrating almost entirely on 2019 novel coronavirus.

As to the other question, we could have moratoriums placed on certain kinds of discussions, but I think that should probably wait until we go through one more full set of requests that will show whether or not there is consensus for implementing SARS-CoV-2 (or the written-out version) or COVID-19 (or the written out version). I don't think it's possible to push a top-down solution for rearranging the pages. It's good that there are some admins around on these pages, but that has to be more for stabilization than for change (especially since those you pinged are WP:INVOLVED to some extent, with the possible exception of BD2412). Dekimasuよ! 03:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to having one article on the virus itself, a second on the Wuhan outbreak, a third on the rest of China, and a fourth on the world outside of China. I note, however, that there is a not insignificant possibility that some countries outside of China may eventually see issues proportionately as severe as China is seeing now. BD2412 T 02:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apropos the "corona thingy", could you'all decide on a standardize name for this virus? It has at least three that I know of. Use the WHO name? Cheers! Shir-El too 09:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I were in charge, the Wikipedia titles for this set of articles would all be standardized in ten minutes (and none of them would contain "Wuhan"). It would be easier if I weren't involved in editing the articles, as well. But I'm just one editor, so the best I can do is try to help other editors agree. Dekimasuよ! 09:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will leave the experts to it. God Bless! Shir-El too 07:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Dekimasu.

The adjustments you made to the entry were perfect and exactly what was needed, and you summarized the two entries to say the same thing. And thank you for the reference cleanup and additional information added there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanspan (talk • contribs) 07:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great, glad that works for you. Best, Dekimasuよ! 08:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dekimasu, on that latest removal regarding the "pangolin identified as early as 2003 in a list of illegally traded animals" was added because, yes, as you say it is not been concluded yet and yet at the same time that research is being conspiratorially called a "red herring." It should be shown this "pandolin" connection is not a conspiracy but a natural evolution of focus and thought over the last 17 years, and not even as recent as October 24, 2019. The research in Vietnam, among many that could be cited from that time, began because the world started looking at a list of illegally traded animals as sources of zoonotic viruses. This provides a context for serious consideration and to encourage more to study this scientifically. Finding the reservoirs is the most important aspect of correct antivirus creation.

I will of course, yield to your considerations in the overall scope of the article. Thanks again for your tireless efforts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanspan (talk • contribs) 08:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Humanspan, it was not my intention to denigrate the source. Hopefully the South China Agricultural University research can be released soon so that the connection, or lack thereof, can be established and reported upon in reliable secondary sources. Best, Dekimasuよ! 09:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see I am longer able to add to this page. Can I be cleared of not being a bot? Dekimasu, this is, I believe, what we needed. If not, then the following should be added to the end of the paragraph on Reservoir. Citations below.

Further examination of the pangolin involvement in the genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 by the South China Agricultural University confirms the receptor-binding domain of the S protein of the Pangolin-CoV is virtually identical to that of SARS-CoV-2. Other virologists confirm this ancestral relationship further in the RaTG13 SARS virus of bat origin, and reveal recombination and retention is something coronaviruses do "to the extreme." Related pangolin genomes are now represented in the ancestry of SARS-CoV-2 having been recombined with RaTG13 sometime in the distant or more immediate past. This also could show more evidence toward the pangolin as the intermediate source.

SOURCES:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.17.951335v1

http://virological.org/t/ncov-2019-spike-protein-receptor-binding-domain-shares-high-amino-acid-identity-with-a-coronavirus-recovered-from-a-pangolin-viral-metagenomic-dataset/362/21

https://nextstrain.org/groups/blab/sars-like-cov — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanspan (talk • contribs) 07:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It will take me a bit of time to read the paper, but I see what you mean. I am surprised that this hasn't been picked up by mainstream sources considering that the original story received so much attention, but perhaps that's because it's a preprint. As to your other question, the article is currently semi-protected to reduce vandalism. The system does not think you are a bot, but will not let you post to the page without more experience on Wikipedia. In this case, you can use {{Edit semi-protected}} on the talk page to request an edit. Best, Dekimasuよ! 07:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The paper looks to contribute to the theory of recombination involving pangolins, but this will be a second study coming out of South China Agricultural University that does not show the 99% similarity previously claimed. Dekimasuよ! 07:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not inclined to add the virological.org source to the article, because while it is a technical forum, it is still a discussion forum. Dekimasuよ! 07:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dekimasu, thank you so very much for your swift response. These are the most reliable sources and we should be very excited Wikipedia will break this first. They are not picking this up because the main stream is not digging. Many journalists are just repeating stuff and many sensationalists are going to extremes. Thank you for protecting the page. It is of utmost importance we substantiate natural origin of this virus. I have two more (just released in last few days) that will show natural origin.

Also, the pace of information is mind boggling on this. I have spent 5-7 hours a day scouring the scientific journals and interacting with grounded virologists, microbiologists including Richard Ebright! He said on twitter to me the other day, "Pangolins are definitely involved." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanspan (talk • contribs) 07:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Humanspan, in general, it is not Wikipedia's goal to be breaking news, but in this case there are studies available that can be clearly connected to the contents, and in this particular case the consensus at the article's talk page has been that preprints are important because of the speed of developments on this topic, as you mentioned. In some ways it was the very fact that the 99% announcement that was put out through press releases that was the problem here. For articles of this type, we tend to prefer scientific sources over news sources, and while we prefer secondary sources to primary sources in general, the secondary sources that are processed through news organizations tend to be of lesser quality than the secondary sources represented by scientific/medical reviews. I have started out adding one sentence from the biorxiv paper, and switched it to a direct quote (the form that you had it in was already very close to the original phrasing in the paper. Dekimasuよ! 07:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 99% issue. The math on the sequence is 98.6% and this second paper is a refinement of that 99%. Look at this quote that is the basis of Nature's page: http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-02/07/c_138763355.htm

They have refined it, and this link is a refinement of that immediate "shoot from the hip" statement back on Feb 7th. This second study you mention is the more relevant information. Perhaps the first sentence can be adjusted to indicate this "was an initial reaction." Depending on how many blocks in the genetic code have been counted, 100, there is only 1 differing! Thank you again for all your efforts. 100%, 98.2%, 96.7% and 90.4% amino acid identity with 2019-nCoV in the E, M, N and S genes, respectively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanspan (talk • contribs) 07:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Once again dear sir. You nailed it and your circumspection curbs my passion. And yes, not intending for Wikipedia to break it, but Wikipedia is a great source of information because of people like you. Thank you.

Titles, MOS, Tree of Life, etc

Thank you for opening my eyes to several topics at the end of the SARS-CoV-2 move request. It had not occurred to me that there is no WP:MOS for something like viruses and that they likely should be separate from WP:NCMED. Also, thanks for the pointer to MOS:ALTNAME. Finally, I went back to the move talk discussion tonight after seeing a new Lancet letter suggesting the CSG's proposed name be changed. It may be weeks (or more) till the name is truly resolved in the scientific community. Best, Inkwzitv (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that this was helpful to you, Inkwzitv. If you happen to bring up a discussion of the guidelines at some point, please let me know. Best, Dekimasuよ! 12:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Planters

I think you should have closed Talk:Planters#Requested move 17 February 2020 as "no consensus to move" instead of "not moved". Yes I realize that the arguments against the move were probably stronger than those in favour in the !votes, but I had provided provided a significant rationalization in my nomination statement with reference to the guidelines and conventions (previous discussions). While there were only 2 supporting (with 1 weak) v 4 opposers, only 2 of the opposers contained any substantial rationalization, the 1st originally being a personal attack (that was removed by another editor) and the 2nd only with a link to PLURALPT which usually (but not always) supports the singular and plural forms going to the same place. While the 2 supporters didn't contain as much rationalization they did appear to allude to the 2nd criteria of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. While I realize that this change doesn't actually physically affect the outcome I think it would more appropriately reflect the discussion since "no consensus" to move is usually in between "not moved" and "no consensus", thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crouch, Swale, first, I apologize that my intention was unclear. In large part I do agree with you on your reading of the discussion (that the discussion did not exhibit a consensus). Part of the issue that arises here is that I have been closing moves since well before WP:THREEOUTCOMES existed and propagated a certain definition of "not moved", and I wasn't involved in the creation of that section. Also, that page implies that it's a guideline while I don't think it has ever been elevated to the level of a guideline. But communication of what I intended to express via the close is important.

To go into a bit more detail, years ago I used to only close move requests as "consensus to move", "no consensus to move", or "consensus not to move". These are statements based upon reading the consensus of the discussion, so I prefer them. (I also try to avoid long statements on my closes because they tend to lead to disagreements over reading of particular arguments rather than the overall outcome, so I usually write "per the discussion below".) At this point many other closers focus on the effects of the discussion rather than what form of consensus is shown, which leads to statements like "moved". I generally only use the statements "moved" and "not moved" in a limited set of circumstances. One might be an unopposed request with little discussion; to me this will result in a move, but is not a very good indication of strong consensus in favor of the action.

Another is what we had here. In my reading of this discussion there was not a strong "consensus not to move" the page, and if there were I would have used that phrasing in my close. However, at the same time, I intended to discourage the initiation of another request based upon the same set of arguments in the future, because I do not see any indication in the discussion that it would move forward toward a consensus in favor of a page move among a different set of RM participants, and it does not appear that there is anything that would prompt a significant shift going forward (such as the possibility that one page or the other might now be coming to prominence, or that its name might be changing). Thus while in effect there is no difference in the outcome (as you stated), I was in fact trying to make a somewhat stronger statement than would have been reflected by closing the discussion as "no consensus to move", which might encourage future attempts to make the same request. One of the reasons this tends to be effective is probably that there has recently come to be a wider acceptance of the idea that "not moved" is a fairly forceful wording, so I have probably benefitted from the newer definition at times. But at the same time I did intend this to be a more nuanced close, and as I wrote above I wish that my intention had been clear to you.

I am fine with changing the close to "no consensus to move" if you'd like, but I would discourage making the same request again in 3 months, 6 months, etc. Dekimasuよ! 02:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I have noticed that you usually use "at this time" in you're closers which suggests that although there is a consensus (or lack of one) at the current RM there could easily later be a different consensus. In this case you're "not moved" "at this time" suggests that although there is consensus against that specific RM there could easily be consensus later. I agree with you that a new RM in 3 or 6 months probably wouldn't be a good idea unless significant new information was presented or it was by someone who didn't participate in this RM, Talk:Wyndham Vale is an example of one that had a new request about 6 weeks later by the same user with the same reason. In the case of Talk:Dowland (disambiguation)#Requested move 20 January 2019 you used "consensus not to move" (which was unanimously opposed) instead of "not moved" here, compare this to Talk:Peter Sutcliffe#Requested move 2 January 2019 where you noted clear "consensus not to move". So yes while I agree there might have been a slightly stronger consensus against the move than for it I think "no consensus to move" would have been more appropriate. I'd also note that because primary topic was at play (rather than best title) there is some consensus that the burden should always be on those wanting a primary topic to get consensus for that even if the article has been a stable primary topic. Consider that if the move was being made the other way round its unlikely that there would be consensus. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you have noticed most of my strategies. In general, they work fairly well. I haven't been taken to WP:MR in at least a year now, I think. The question of what would happen if this were "no consensus" and the other way around is probably another factor that led me to use the closing statement I did. If "no consensus" were taken to be evidence that nothing should have the primary topic, then again, I think the most appropriate result of the discussion in this case was that nothing should be moved at this time. Dekimasuよ! 12:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think a statement like "no consensus due to the arguments on the oppose side being slightly stronger than the support side" would be better. Otherwise we would be left in situations where we have to close as "moved" due to no consensus (where arguments for and against are split) and "not moved" in situations where the arguments against are slightly stronger. I think "no consensus" is an appropriate outcome in cases where the arguments against are slightly stronger as long as that's noted. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is your variety of English?

Just wanted to know what your variety of English is so that I can replace the ugly {{EngvarB}} template on Coronavirus disease 2019 with the correct regional one, like {{Use British English}} or {{Use Australian English}}. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 09:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, good question. Actually, I believe Template:EngvarB was already in place when I started editing what was at the time Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV). When I helped split what was then 2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease from the virus article, I moved the template over as well. However, while I understand your concern, I don't think it should be necessary to switch the template to something else. EngvarB is not deprecated, and the topic has no strong links to any national variety of English, so I think for it to be nondescript is just about right. Not having any such template on the page at all might have the same effect, but I don't think we would want the page to be "colonized" by a specific variety later on. (To answer your question to some extent, I use American spelling in the mainspace when there's nothing telling me I shouldn't. I think I am responsible for most of the body text at Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 if you'd like to diagnose my dialect.) Dekimasuよ! 12:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's alright; I identified the originator of the text. Thank you for the help though. In response to what you said, a template for keeping an English variety in flux goes entirely against the guideline of keeping a variety consistent. The {{EngvarB}} template is not without criticism and is understandably seen by non-Americans as US-/North America-biased. It's also virtually useless given that 99% of the time it's referring to a {{Commonwealth English}} variety, most often British English. But thank you anyway. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 12:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found it too. An IP editor in Indonesia. Interesting. As far as consistency is concerned, I tend to think there is a difference between aiming for flux and aiming for retaining a variety without label(l)ing it. But I see your point. Dekimasuよ! 12:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

help with Move for Heated Tobacco Products

Hi, I don't know the procedures for summarizing a Wiki discussion and actually performing a Move of "heat-not-burn products" to "heated tobacco products" now that it has been under discussion for a week and the consensus of support looks consistent. Could you perchance do so or let me know who can? thank you very much. DrNicotiana (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your bad faith reporting of Symphony Regalia at edit warring noticeboard

Please stop your disruptive behaviour. It appears you are purposefully harassing another editor. Wikipedia aims to provide a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. Karicodex (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]