Jump to content

User talk:Amakuru

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 · 35 · 36 · 37 · 38 · 39 · 40 · 41 · 42

January music

[edit]
story · music · places

300 years ago, a Bach cantata was born: happy new year! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:05, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: happy new year to you! I ended up having a Wikibreak over the Christmas and new year period as I was away with family and then on a friends reunion for a few nights. Very nice time, but have to readjust to normal life again now. Looking forward to lots more wonderful Wiki-work from yourself in 2026.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:07, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! - inviting you to check out "my" story (fun listen today, full of surprises), music (and memory), and places (pictured by me: the latest uploads) any day! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So many nice things and sadnesses in those links, thanks for sharing Gerda Arendt! RIP to Andrew Carter, and that's a nice rendition of the twelve days of Christmas... The pre-Christmas concert I mentioned to you a few weeks ago featured an audience-interaction version of that, with standing up and actions. Nice to have a bit of family fun at a classical music event!  — Amakuru (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! - Today you can watch the 2010 premiere of a violin sonata with the composer also the pianist. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you today for 2017 Africa Cup of Nations Final, introduced (in 2021): "In addition to the FIFA World Cup, football's greatest prize, each continent has its own prestigious tournament for national teams. In Europe we've just completed one, the UEFA Euro 2020. And in Africa, the equivalent competition is the Africa Cup of Nations. This article is about the final of the 2017 edition of that tournament, which featured 7-time winners Egypt against 4-time winners Cameroon. As with similar articles, there are details about how each nation reached the final, as well as some background information and reactions."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:14, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Ilulissat

[edit]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Ilulissat, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A bare URL and missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick William III

[edit]

I do not think that this is quite right. The recent attempt to move Frederick William III of Prussia to Frederick William III failed because there was no consensus that the Prussian king is the primary topic. Not only that, but there was a consensus for Frederick William III to be a disambiguation page. Surtsicna (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Surtsicna: and thanks for your note. The move request was specifically for moving "Frederick III of Prussia" to "Frederick III". That move request failed, so the status quo prevailed, which was that Frederick III is a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Frederick III of Prussia. That is the longstanding state of affairs.
If you wish to make a case that there's actually no primary topic at all (and I can't imagine such a proposal would succeed, given that Frederick III of Prussia has a huge lead over the other entries in page views), you would have to specifically propose that via a move request at Talk:Frederick William III (disambiguation). Per WP:EXPLICIT, the disambiguation page shouldn't be moved because of a move request on a different page which didn't specify it as part of a multimove request. Indeed, I only spotted the bold move today because I had the disambiguation page watched and noticed it being moved without an accompanying RM. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am not making a case that there is no primary topic at all. That case has already been made. It is the consensus reached at Talk:Frederick William III of Prussia. Should the move request be reopened so that the disambiguation page can be formally included in it? Surtsicna (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Surtsicna: what do you mean "the case has been made"? Where? As I said, the disambiguation page was not included in the request. The proposal was simply to chop of the "of Prussia" part, something which was also proposed in a wider RM in 2024, and failed to find consensus there. If you think there should be a removal of the primary topic, then you could speak to the RM closer about reopening the RM and then inserting the disambiguation page as an additional target so it meets the stipulations of WP:EXPLICIT. But that RM was over a month ago now, so maybe a fresh RM on the disambiguation page only might be a preferable way to do it? Either way, I remain puzzled why you think there would not be a primary topic, given the overwhelming lead in page views, not to mention that the Prussian king is pretty much the only result that comes up in a Google search for "Frederick William III" as well. It seems like if the move proposed is not to be enacted, then why not just remain with the longstanding status quo which has stood the test of time? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I do indeed believe that the king is the primary topic, but I mislike the idea that the king can simultaneously be the primary topic for the purposes of the Frederick William III redirect and not the primary topic for the purposes of the title of the biography. This strikes me as skirting the consensus, which is wrong however I may feel about the consensus. Surtsicna (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Surtsicna: well in a sense I do agree with you, I think the RM in question had the wrong result - there should have been a move of Frederick William III of Prussia to the plain Frederick William III page, matching the recent similar move at Frederick William IV. I completely missed that RM, as perhaps did you, otherwise I would have certainly !voted to support the proposal - I find the counterarguments in the "oppose" !votes to be not very grounded in evidence.
But the failure of that RM doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater and move the whole thing to having no primary topic, when there so blatantly is a primary topic, and no move of the disambiguation page was ever officially proposed. That would be a WP:Wikilawyering approach which would not benefit readers. Until very recently, almost all royal articles had the of <location> suffix on their title regardless of primary topic, and it's only recently that the tide of WP:NCROY has turned in favour of removing them, so it's hardly a novelty. And indeed, redirects like Malcolm IV and Pedro II still do point a shorter name at a longer name, albeit they'd probably benefit from shortening too. If the failed move is ever proposed again, or if there's a case for reopening the original one, I'll be among the first to support it, hopefully that can happen at some point. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly no evidence was provided that the king is not the primary topic–and your evidence to the contrary is convincing–but that is the standing consensus. Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, If no primary topic exists, then the term should be the title of a disambiguation page. I do not understand what gives the two of us the right to circumvent an explicit consensus. Surtsicna (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Like I say, what explicit consensus? There were two votes against the proposal and the nominator in favour, and the closer closed with a glib "not moved" and went on with their life. The status quo ante remained in place, as indeed it has in the month since the RM, until today when someone attempted to do a follow up bold move that the closer hadn't mentioned in their close. I'm not denying the matter of primary topic was raised, but had the closer intended to find for such a consensus they would have had to say so, and then move the page themselves, or probably do a relist anyway since the matter of the disambiguation page move was not a formal part of the proposal. At that stage I, and perhaps others, would certainly have challenged the close at the time as far as a move review, if we thought such a change of primary topic was afoot. But it wasn't, and we didn't. The status quo remains. You can't come back a month later and argue there was a consensus for something the closer never mentioned and which they didn't effect, bypassing the usual checks and balances. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Heretic (upcoming film)" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Heretic (upcoming film) 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/2026 January 13 § Heretic (upcoming film) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 01:40, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 January 2026

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amakuru&oldid=1333559492"