User talk:Aseleste/Archives/Talk/2021/05
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
|
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Question from Aseleste on User talk:Aseleste (09:12, 7 May 2021)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Testing being asked questions... --~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 09:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
DYK for 2021 Emilia Romagna Grand Prix
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On 6 May 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2021 Emilia Romagna Grand Prix, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after their roughly 320 km/h (200 mph) crash at the 2021 Emilia Romagna Grand Prix, George Russell slapped Valtteri Bottas on his crash helmet while Bottas showed Russell his middle finger? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2021 Emilia Romagna Grand Prix. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 2021 Emilia Romagna Grand Prix), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/SpaceX/Invite requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
This proposal has been deleted with no project created. Please delete this template.
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 17:08, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Just so you know, I am the IP address who requested the template. I now am registered. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 17:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Greetings Aseleste!
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You were, apparently, selected as my mentor in the Newcomers Program recently started on a trial basis. Allow me to offer my condolences in that regard. I am not sure how many you were given to mentor but I will endeavor to outperform them all in difficulty (tongue in cheek). If I may ask a question, what is your focus here within the encyclopedia? Do you have a favorite genre or subject to edit? Perhaps a specific type of edit? --ARoseWolf 15:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- @ARoseWolf: Hello! I see you are trying out Special:Homepage. I signed up for mentoring on Wikipedia:Growth Team features/Mentor list.
- To answer your questions, there does not seem to be a way to know how many mentees I have. My major focus right now is closing discussions, though that could shift. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 06:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dumb question; where can I find categories? Panini!🥪 15:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Panini!: Usually I would look for appropriate categories in pages of related topic (in this case, Roblox) and similar type (in this case, list articles).
- I see you have already added categories in Special:Diff/1022804179, so I think you have figured it out yourself. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 23:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
move of DHSC
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, before requesting an official "move review", I will do what the page advises me to do:
"Before requesting a move review: please attempt to discuss the matter with the closer of the page move discussion on the closer's talk page."
Basically 3 arguments were used to move the page:
- The suggested target is the common uncluttered name that is consistent with the names of other football clubs in the Netherlands.
- Nonsense
- 2020–21 Eredivisie#Teams → 18 out of 18 clubs do not use VV.
- 2020–21 Eerste Divisie#Teams → 16 out of 16 clubs (excluding the 4 Jong ... teams) do not use VV.
- 2020–21 Tweede Divisie#Teams → only 2 (VV Katwijk and VV Noordwijk) out of 16 (excluding the 2 Jong ... teams) use VV.
- 2020–21 Derde Divisie#Teams and 2020–21 Derde Divisie#Teams 2 → only 4 (VV DOVO, VV Staphorst, VV GOES, VV Sparta Nijkerk + 4 (VV Dongen, VV Gemert, VV Hoogland, VV UNA) = 8 out of 18 + 18 = 36 use VV.
- So out of 92 teams from 86 clubs only 10 use VV. Not what I would define as "common uncluttered" and "consistent with the names of other football clubs". If you continue to lower tiers you probably find more "VV's", but it will never become "common".
- VV DHSC is also official.
- No it's not official. Clubs are listed by their official (statuary) name at the KvK. It clearly shows the official name is "Dos Holland Stichtse Boys Combinatie", abbreviated as DHSC. There is no mentioning of "VV".
- See club's website.
- The website consistantly speaks of "DHSC" and not of "VV DHSC". The only mentioning of "VV" is in the URL of the clubs website. However there's a logical reason, www.dhsc.nl is already taken, so they couldn't use the URL with the proper name.
All in all, 3 reasons which are false. In all 3 cases the opposite is true. The move is therefore unjustified and should be reverted. --Sb008 (talk) 02:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Sb008: For 2 and 3, those arguments are ignored since using wp:official names is not the policy, so the only considered reason when closing is 1. Your rebuttal to 1 seems reasonable though, but before I take further actions, I would like to know what the prefix "VV" means. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- VV means Voetbal Vereniging, the Dutch equivalent of FC (Football Club). And as far as argument 2 and 3 are concerned. "VV DHSC" is claimed to be official, where it isn't official, it's not even common. So the claim is false. And refering to the website is another false claim, since the club doesn't use "VV DHSC". So argument 2 and 3 can't be igbnored. Wiki is first of all about facts, and false claims are anything but facts. So the requestors argument 2 and 3 should not have been considered in the move, but they should certainly be considered in undoing the move because they prove argument 2 and 3 are false claims. Or are you telling me that we consider lies and ignore facts which prove it to be lies? Or to put it simple, if I claim your first name is officially Igor, and you show your birth certificate proving your first name isn't officially Igor, we gonna call you Igor anyway. After all, we ignore the proof since using official names is not a policy, we rather use fantasy names. --Sb008 (talk) 03:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Sb008: Thanks for explaining "VV". To me, wp:official names just mean the name should be considered as a possibility but not be an argument for moving and not moving. Anyway, this does not matter since I will now undo the close and relist based on 1 raised above. You will probably want to express your opinion there. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- VV means Voetbal Vereniging, the Dutch equivalent of FC (Football Club). And as far as argument 2 and 3 are concerned. "VV DHSC" is claimed to be official, where it isn't official, it's not even common. So the claim is false. And refering to the website is another false claim, since the club doesn't use "VV DHSC". So argument 2 and 3 can't be igbnored. Wiki is first of all about facts, and false claims are anything but facts. So the requestors argument 2 and 3 should not have been considered in the move, but they should certainly be considered in undoing the move because they prove argument 2 and 3 are false claims. Or are you telling me that we consider lies and ignore facts which prove it to be lies? Or to put it simple, if I claim your first name is officially Igor, and you show your birth certificate proving your first name isn't officially Igor, we gonna call you Igor anyway. After all, we ignore the proof since using official names is not a policy, we rather use fantasy names. --Sb008 (talk) 03:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Regarding Biswanath Jnan Bharati School
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ok User:Aseleste, thanks for improving me as I am not that experienced. ~ Jogesh 69 (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Jogesh 69: You are welcome! I would suggest reading WP:CSD carefully every time you tag an article. Here is my feedback:
- If the article is not eligible for WP:CSD, consider using WP:PROD or WP:AfD instead. Thanks! ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 06:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Regarding my new pages
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, I have created two new pages Shivankit Singh Parihar and Gullak. Its been a week, no administrator or a page reviewer visited. I think you are a new page reviewer so can you please review them and marked them as reviewed. And also Sameer Saxena. Jogesh 69 (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
Redirect Ninja | |
| For your work on Wikipedia:Articles for Creation/Redirects and Categories. |
{{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 21:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. Glad to see that Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories is not backlogged. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 05:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Closure of the move request at Talk:Video game piracy
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello,
On 23 April 2021 you closed the move request on the article Video game piracy. I disagree with your closure. The people opposing it, in my opinion, did not give sufficient reasoning as to why it should not be moved. They also did not answer questions I asked regarding their comments. Please can you explain why you closed it when the discussion was ongoing? Thanks, DesertPipeline (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Addendum: Also, the common name policy states this: "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources.
" I feel like this should be taken into consideration regarding the name of this article, and other articles which use the word "piracy" in this way. DesertPipeline (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- (Sorry for the slow response, this took some time to write.) @DesertPipeline: The criteria for titles are wp:criteria. The arguments in the discussion were:
- Arguments for moving
- "Piracy" is a WP:POVTITLE x1
- "Piracy" is inaccurate x1
- Arguments for not moving
- "Piracy" is the wp:common name overwhelmingly x3
- "Piracy" is wp:concise x1 –
I like clear and succinct titles for article names.
- "Piracy" is not a WP:POVTITLE x2
- The arguments for not moving were stronger so I closed the discussion as not moved. Even if this were closed as no consensus, the title would have stayed at Video game piracy as it is the stable title per wp:threeoutcomes.
- As for whether the discussion is ongoing, it seem unlikely since the last question was asked six days before the closure without a response. They are not obligated to response. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 12:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Arguments for not moving
- Common name – It is the common name, but as the common name policy says, inaccurate names "are often avoided". "Piracy" is most certainly an inaccurate name because it was invented by publishers who disapproved of this copying to smear people who did it by equating their actions with something actually harmful.
- Concise – It is 'concise', but it's also wrong. Sometimes it isn't possible to explain something 'concisely' and be correct, as is the case here. While "Unauthorized distribution of video games" (although I now favour "copying" rather than "distribution") is more complex than "Video game piracy", it actually describes the topic rather than being a point-of-view term that has been heavily pushed on people, and due to that pushing has been accepted as okay when it's not.
- Not a POV title – The arguments given for it not being a POV title aren't accurate. Andrewa argued that because people who copy games without authorisation use the term themselves, it is somehow not a point-of-view term. I am really not sure how they came to that conclusion. It shouldn't be surprising that people who copy games without authorisation use the term too – it's been heavily pushed, as previously stated. When all of the business-people are using the term as if it's legitimate, it's not surprising that the public will be fooled into believing it is legitimate. Waxworker says "
There also isn't sufficent sources saying that 'piracy' is generally regarded as a smear word.
", but https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Piracy is a source for opposition to the term, and links to a court case where a US judge refused to allow the uses of the words "piracy" and "theft" in a copyright infringement case.
- In conclusion, I don't think the arguments of those who opposed the move are actually valid. Would you say my analysis is fair? Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 04:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- @DesertPipeline: For common name, there is neither agreement nor disagreement by others in the discussion whether the name is inaccurate, so there is at most weak support for the inaccuracy of the name, if any. Therefore, while I cannot exclude the argument, I also cannot give it full weight. The "often avoided" wording does allow for exceptions, so it does not completely invalidate the arguments by others even if the name is inaccurate (downweighing is considerable, but that depends on whether the name is accurate according to consensus).
- For conciseness, the argument against conciseness presented here depends on the accuracy and neutrality of the name.
- For neutrality, Andrewa's argument is intend to counter that "piracy" has a negative implication. As far as I can see, "piracy" has a negative implication is the only reason for POV of the title, so unless there other reasons raised in the discussion that I missed, Andrewa's argument is fine. While it would be ideal that Waxworker provide some evidence for "
'piracy' is generally regarded as a smear word
", providing two sources that say "piracy" is a smear word is not an ideal evidence as well – beware of cherry picking. Therefore, I cannot give either arguments more weight over the other one. - Opinion: You mentioned that the term is being pushed heavily. For Wikipedia's purposes, it does not matter as Wikipedia is not supposed to right great wrongs. If someday somebody somehow pushed the idea of flat Earth to most people – Wikipedia itself would not resist the pushing. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 07:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- The negative implication of "piracy" in this context is it's comparing the act of copying with acts by actual pirates – as in, violence.
- Regarding "if it was being heavily pushed that Earth was flat, we'd go along with it", would we? We know for a fact that Earth isn't flat, because we have direct evidence of it. We also have evidence that copying does not involve attacking ships.
- While Wikipedia should not right great wrongs, to not use a non-neutral word or term for something isn't righting great wrongs – it's simply not making things worse. By using the word "piracy" in this context, Wikipedia is agreeing with a point-of-view. That's a big problem, and it needs to be solved. DesertPipeline (talk) 07:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- @DesertPipeline: When closing discussions, the closer is not supposed to insert their opinion, so the opinion part of my message is irrelevant for the purposes of determining a consensus. Otherwise I should have !voted. Since closing discussions should not involve my opinion, it would be counter-productive to debate whether using "piracy" is POV here for the purposes of determining whether the close is correct.
- You can try the option mentioned below or read Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion#Advice on renominating (the page is mainly about XfDs, but the linked section should apply to RMs as well). ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 07:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- In case you are not aware, wp:move review is available. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 07:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for the link to move review; I was already aware of it, but the close template states that it's best to discuss the closure with the closer before going to move review. DesertPipeline (talk) 10:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)