User talk:Amakuru/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
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

SMILE! 16 July 2017

Hello Amakuru, Me-123567-Me has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
@Me-123567-Me: thank you very much! Very thoughtful of you, and that has definitely brightened up my day. Sending a smile back at you:  — Amakuru (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Backlog of move requests

We're quite efficiently purging the move request backlog, aren't we?[FBDB] — JFG talk 15:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: indeed, it's going quite nicely. Good effort all round! The backlog was huge a couple of days ago. Now then, what's that one at the top of the backlog now? Ah... no, wait, can't touch that  — Amakuru (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Blessed be the lost soul who will tackle this one! — JFG talk 15:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I just put out a global consensus proposal for Directly elected mayor of Doncaster and friends; your opinion would be welcome. However, I have no idea how to handle Global warming in Russia {and friends): I have a feeling I would get into trouble no matter which way I slice this. Two touchy subjects such as "Russia" and "global warming" shouldn't be mixed in a single move request! — JFG talk 15:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
@JFG: right, I'll have a look at the Doncaster one and comment there. As for Global warming in Russia, I can't really tell you which way to judge it, seeing as I participated myself! Touchy on those subjects is right. Seems to raise some strong emotions in various quarters...  — Amakuru (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
@JFG: only one RM on the backlog right now... I wonder which one it is???  — Amakuru (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Ah, Russian global warming was relisted, good luck with that! Now taking bets on how many days New York wiil be on the block… I say it should be settled by Sunday. — JFG talk 23:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Had some fun at the expense of that trainwreck of an article…[1] Now bed time! — JFG talk 00:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

unfortunately, currently i dont have much time to spend on wikipedia. But I still trying my best to process the easy ones when I have limited time, and when I have more time I can process more controversial. @JFG: Actually, that discussion wasnt much fun. The trouble was here after the discussion was closed. And now I forgot why was I here on Amakuru's talkpage lol. I will ask when I remember again. See you guys around. :)
—usernamekiran(talk) 23:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: OK, thanks for stopping by... I look forward to seeing you again soon  — Amakuru (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The backlog is currently at two JFG, and Amakuru. The two discussions are sort of out of my depth so I left them for an experienced editor. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: I think I voted in both those two discussions, so I won't advise you what to do with them! You can use it as a learning exercise anyway - study the discussion and decide how you would close it. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I've closed the one at Talk:Catholicism (term)#Requested move 10 October 2017 and found consensus to rename it Catholicity. @Amakuru: could you please move the page? It looks move-protected and I ain't got no mop… — JFG talk 23:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
@JFG:  Done. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
That reminds me, I also had voted at catholism. When I logged in now, there was no backlog and only two pages in elapsed listing. I relisted one, while BD2412 relisted the other. So for a few hours, RM is clean. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Legitimate relistings, of course - these discussions need further input. bd2412 T 23:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Oops

Didn't see that was closed - thanks!! SEMMENDINGER (talk) 13:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Semmendinger: He he, not a problem! And it's nothing personal, just that we want to preserve the request exactly as it was at the time of closure, otherwise people looking in the future may have difficulty determining what the information was at that time.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Haha, of course! I was pinged over there and didn't even think to check if it was closed yet! Thanks again :) SEMMENDINGER (talk) 13:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Pro-democracy camp

The discussion has been on for seven days now and I think it's clear that the result is to change the title to "pro-democracy camp (Hong Kong)". Lmmnhn (talk) 02:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
@Cullen328: you're welcome, and a massive congratulations to you - here's a beer (or nonalcoholic beverage if you prefer) to celebrate. I imagine RfA is always a stressful experience even if you do get over 300 supports and 2 opposes... If you need any assistance from me, just let me know, but I think you already know what you're doing better than many existing admins already so you'll be fine. Welcome to the corps!  — Amakuru (talk) 10:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Former Dnipropetrovsk categories

Hi. Following change the name of the article about Dnipro could you change categories about the city? I have no permission to do it because target names are busy (i.e.: Category:Buildings and structures in Dnipro). List of Ykvach's contributions could helpful in finding categories to move: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Ykvach&namespace=&tagfilter=&start=2016-05-01&end=2016-05-31 . Greetings, Ales sandro (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ales sandro: I think it's best if you list them at WP:CFDS; that way, after 14 days of listing, the categories and all the pages that belong to them will be moved by a bot, which will be easier all round. Otherwise it's quite a lot of work to move everything! Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Yummyexpress

Where... exactly is the claim of significance in this is a website that was founded this year that does stuff and also exists? TimothyJosephWood 10:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: Well, surely being an online provider of food services, serving restaurants and clients in a particular area is a claim to significance, even if it is not necessarily a claim to notability. It puts it in the same category as Grubhub, and Deliveroo etc. A7 is a tricky one to get right, as its language is so subjective, but WP:A7 is clear that its bar is well below the bar needed for survival at AfD. Anyway, in the case of yummyexpress, I've had another look at online sources, and its online presence seems to minimal, that probably this is a fair deletion so I've done that. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2017).

Administrator changes

added Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 (first RfA to reach WP:300)
removed Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 August 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Bernard Lafferty (butler) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bernard Lafferty (butler). Since you had some involvement with the Bernard Lafferty (butler) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Home Lander (talk) 23:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

747 Supertanker

Hello,

it is my understanding that on spring 2016, you closed the discussion about whether to move the page Evergreen 747 Supertanker to "Boeing 747 Supertanker", because there was no consensus about it. I think time has come to reopen the case.

The main arguments for the "oppose" side were that the new aircraft would be a different one and would have its own page (or section in the general 747-400 page), and that the new company may keep the Evergreen name. Since then, it has become clear that this page was used for the Global Supertanker Services' aircraft as well, and that GSS does not plan to use the Evergreen name in any way (they don't even mention the Evergreen legacy on their website).

Therefore, I think that makes no sense to keep using the "Evergreen" title and a more generic name like "Boeing 747 Supertanker" not only could, but should be chosen. Have a nice day, Herisson26 (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Guidance requested

Hi.
I just asked a question to Dr. Strauss on his talkpage here. Would you please take a look at it, and comment there? Not about that particular case, but about a generalised situation. Thanks. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Rwandan Civil War

Hello! Your submission of Rwandan Civil War at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).

Administrator changes

added Nakon • Scott
removed Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
  • Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
  • In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

Arbitration

  • Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

T. J. Miller or T.J. Miller

Since you participated in the discussion at Talk:J.J. Watt#Requested move 2 December 2016, the current exchange, at Talk:T. J. Miller#Requested move 6 September 2017, may be of interest. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Rwandan Civil War

On 14 September 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Rwandan Civil War, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that following the Rwandan Civil War, two million Hutu refugees fled to neighboring countries (Rwandan refugee camp pictured), fearing reprisals? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rwandan Civil War. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Rwandan Civil War), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

Alex ShihTalk 00:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: @Jupitus Smart: @Usernameunique: @Cwmhiraeth: thanks for picking this up, and I'm pleased that it's finally in the DYK section. Apologies for not responding to the above request for an update, I had been insanely busy IRL during August and didn't have much on-wiki time. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Post-WWII Anti-fascism‎

Hi - did you mean "not a proper name" or "a proper name"? Your down-casing suggests the latter. Doug Weller talk 10:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: oh yes, thanks for the catch. I've corrected it. Do you agree? It doesn't look like a proper name to me.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Late response, sorry. Yes, I agree. Doug Weller talk 10:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Amakuru. You have new messages at Talk:List of First World War Victoria Cross recipients.
Message added 08:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi Amakuru. Would you mind leaving a message at said discussion? Thanks. --Nevé–selbert 08:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Amakuru, thank you for your comments at my RfA. Your support is much appreciated! ansh666 22:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ansh666: Not a problem. Thanks to you for all your hard work on the Wiki, and welcome to the admin corps!  — Amakuru (talk) 09:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 September 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Native Americans#Requested move 18 September 2017

What are your further thoughts on this? (Respond at linked page). I've posted some dictionary entry links you might want to take a look at. The Transhumanist 17:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

X-ray specs

Hi, I had requested the page move to X-ray specs, but you moved it to X-Ray specs. Isn't that a mistake? If there's no problem, please move the page to X-ray specs as requested and supported by some people in the talk page. For what it's worth, we also have the page X-ray, not X-Ray. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@Daniel Carrero: ah OK, thanks for letting me know. That wasn't intentional, I hadn't noticed the difference. I've moved it now, as requested. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Could you please move X-Ray Specs (disambiguation) to X-ray specs (disambiguation)? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
@Daniel Carrero: I deliberately left that one at X-Ray Specs, because both the two entries on it are capitalised. The caps form X-Ray Specs does redirect to the lower case form though.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
I understand, thanks. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).

Administrator changes

added Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem
removed Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
  • A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Additional move in relation to Presidential Directive → National Security Directive

Hi, thanks for taking care of the requested move backlog. As I wrote in the move request, I would also like to have my sandbox moved under the title "Presidential Directive", effectively occupying the place left vacant. I would like the history starting from here to be preserved (although, you may copy the entire history if that's easier—I virtually didn't touch my sandbox before writing the article). I realize now that this may be a difficult request, given that the current redirect contains some history from before a merge. Cheers, Uglemat (talk) 20:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Uglemat (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
@Uglemat: You're welcome.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Move review

An editor has asked for a Move review of Grand Duchy of Kraków. Because you participated in the requested move, you might want to participate in the move review. Academicoffee71 (talk) 05:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I am not shouting at you

I am using bold text at WikiProject Trucks to play to the audience, not to address you personally. It is very confused there. Could you please ignore any bold? Thank you. EDIT: It is almost impossible to edit there. Any chance you could break it up a little? You would not look biased, I certainly would. I don't know how, anyway. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 13:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Olimpia Ramnicu Sarat

Oppose? The team was founded in 1966 as Olimpia Râmnicu Sărat, then in the 00's changed its name in CSM Râmnicu Sărat, was dissolved and refounded in 2010 as Olimpia 2010 Râmnicu Sărat and in this summer the club made a request at the Romanian Football Federation to change its name again in CSM Râmnicu Sărat, request that was approved, thing demonstrated through the links that are from the official Romanian Football Federation websites, not gambling sites...it's not a translation problem, the club changed its name pure and simple, now is CSM Râmnicu Sărat, C=Clubul (The Club), S=Sportiv (Sports), M=Municipal (of the Municiplaity) and Râmnicu Sărat is the city name. Olimpia come from Olympics and means something different. But the problem is that CSM Râmnicu Sărat page exist, because the club was named in this way in the past and I can not make a classic move page procedure. Rhinen

Infobox brewery

Hi, you deleted the redirect Infobox Brewery to Template:Infobox Brewery with listed reason "R2". "This applies to Redirects, apart from shortcuts, from the main namespace to any other namespace except the Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help: and Portal: namespaces." This was a redirect from the main namespace to Template, one of the exceptions specifically listed to R2. I'm not terribly torn up about this, mind you, I just find myself frequently forgetting the Template: part (same with "cite news") and I figured it wouldn't be an issue. I'm not trying to contest or appeal this, just curious about the listed exceptions, or if this was an oversight.-Ich (talk) 19:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Confirmation edit

Confirmation edit.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

World War I

Hi again Amakuru. Not sure if you're aware, but the move request at Talk:List of First World War Victoria Cross recipients was closed recently as no consensus. I asked DrStrauss on his talkpage whether he would consider reopening the discussion, but I don't expect a reply soon as he is currently suffering from medical issues. However, another user by the name of A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver wrote an extraordinarily impassioned comment against relisting the move on the basis that "British Great War Veterans would literally turn in their graves over this abysmal idea", going on to say "I seriously reject trying to reduce the mass killing of millions of people to a roman numeral". Not really sure how to respond to this.--Nevé–selbert 21:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Neve-selbert: and thanks for stopping by. I'd forgotten about that discussion actually, so didn't see the result. We'll see what DrStrauss says, but I don't know how much traction we'd get on trying to push for a consensus on this one. Most likely to effect the change we'd have to frame it as a site-wide RfC to include all relevant articles, including these ones, and also present lots of evidence to back up the case. It should be sufficient to show that this is not an ENGVAR issue in particular. Obviously plenty of people do still say "First World War", but it's already more common in the UK and elsewhere to say "World War I".
As for the impassioned comment you mention, where to even begin... The idea that calling it "World War I" rather than "First World War" is in some way an affront to the memory of veterans is a rather baffling one to me, particularly as I believe it was known as the "Great War" at the time, until the second world war came along.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for the belated reply, but do you think it would be worth pursuing an RFC? I'm not too sure, as it could backfire.--Nevé–selbert 19:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
@Neve-selbert: I'm not too sure, to be honest. Probably for an RfC to be successful we'd have to come up with some good solid evidence about the shifting usage... because judging by the previous RM there certainly seem to be some strong feelings about retaining the "Second World War" nomenclature in British-related articles. I haven't yet done a full analysis of the sources myself. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello again. In the past 24 hours, DuncanHill has taken it upon himself to revert every move I made about a month ago regarding World War I/II. In light of this, I now think that an RfC on the matter probably is necessary, so to clarify matters and avoid such editing disputes in future. That being said, it might be a good idea to initially take this up at WP:MOSTALK. SMcCandlish might have some thoughts on this.--Nevé–selbert 17:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
As I said on Neve-selbert's talk page, and which he has chosen to reply to here, I reverted his changes as they were made without consensus, without any notification at the pages moved, contrary to some previous RM discussions, and contrary to the outcome of another RM that Neve-selbert had initiated. One way to avoid such editing disputes is not to claim something contrary to fact, as will be noted if you do decide to go down the RfC route. DuncanHill (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
@DuncanHill: That's fine, you're entitled to revert undiscussed moves, but I do agree with Neve-selbert that this is an issue we need to sort out. An RFC is probably the best approach, then we can look at the issue from all angles. I expressed some interest in this topic a month or two ago, which is why I've been discussing it with Neve here. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
They were not only undiscussed, Neve-selbert claimed a consensus which did not exist. In fact, some of the articles had had discussions already which had a consensus for the Br/CanEng usage. As for this being "an issue we need to sort out", it is covered by EngVar, so it has already been sorted out - or will your RfC cover EngVar too? I don't need you to tell me that I can revert improper moves, thank you very much, I know that already. DuncanHill (talk) 17:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
This is hardly an Engvar issue, plenty of British people use and recognise "World War II".--Nevé–selbert 17:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Plenty of us can recognise a dishonest claim of consensus too, especially from someone with a recent history of unilateral problematic moves in other areas. It is an EngVar issue, as has been pointed out to you by others as well as myself, and should be clear to you if you read EngVar. "Being able to recognise" a term is not the same as that term being the common or usual usage. I do not understand why you are so worked up about this. It's a shame you chose to blank my message on your talk page, instead of engaging in discussion there, instead of running to a sympathetic admin to try to find some way around reality. DuncanHill (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I had never claimed there was consensus, and I apologise for the unilateralism in my edits, which I regret and should have discussed in hindsight. I blanked your message as I found it rather scolding and unfriendly, but I did read it. I have got the message, and I am not going to attempt to have your reverts undone. In no way am I trying to find a way around reality, at least no more than these discussants were.--Nevé–selbert 18:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
The edit summaries for your moves referred to a discussion in a way which would be likely to be taken by a casual reader as implying that the discussion supported the move, when in fact it did not. You took no notice of previous discussions on the talk pages of some of those you moved, and you took no notice of another discussion which did not support your moves. I am sorry if pointing these facts out to you came across as scolding and unfriendly, but I see no point in sugar-coating such things. The only reason I didn't take the matter to ANI at the same time as reverting is that I know you to generally be a constructive editor. I do appreciate your regret and hindsight. I have refrained from unilaterally moving some other articles I found with the "World War n" formula to "Nth World War" because, with foresight, and looking at talk pages and edit histories, I can see that it should be done via Requested Moves rather than off my own bat. DuncanHill (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Sounds like WP:RM matter to me; it's not really an MoS issue, but a WP:COMMONNAME (and WP:CONCISE). I would bet that the names end up at the "World War II" rather than "Second World War" ones, simply for brevity's sake. Someone's apt to try to make a MOS:ENGVAR claim, but that's countered by MOS:COMMONALITY. There are precisely zero British people who don't understand "World War II", and the construction does appear in British sources, just not as frequently; by contrast, nearly zero Brits use "trunk", "hood", "fender", and "curb" in reference to cars and roads; that's an ENGVAR matter. Not only has "World War II" been more common than "Second World War", English-wide, since the war itself, it's overwhelmingly more common [2]. It wasn't "wrong" to have reverted the moves back to "Second" versions, since the moves weren't discussed, just probably a lost cause. The practical approach is probably a mass-RM, though leaving out any questionable cases (e.g. proper names of things like memorials, etc.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  20:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

List of populated places in New Mexico

Hi, thank you for moving List of populated places in New Mexico. It looks like Talk:List of populated places in New Mexico by population didn't get moved to the new title, though—Talk:List of populated places in New Mexico is still showing as a redirect to Talk:List of census-designated places in New Mexico, which is no longer correct. Do you mind taking a look at this? Thanks! Camerafiend (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Camerafiend: ah OK, thanks for pointing that out. I've moved the talk page just now.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Camerafiend (talk) 12:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

UNCF

Hi - thanks for taking the time on the close here. One question, though, re: common name. Both my and SMC's stats showed a mixed bag: UNCF is more common in news, but less common in books and journals, even as of today. That would suggest there either isn't a common name, or both names are common names - depending on how you view WP:COMMONNAME. Either way, I don't see how that supports a consensus to move, especially if you are discounting the "it's not 1957"-type !votes. I'd appreciate your thoughts there. Dohn joe (talk) 14:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@Dohn joe: thanks for your message. I agree it's a tough one and a line call, and there is no absolutely clear cut winner on common name, but aside from the book sources it did seem like the shorter name was edging most of the others. You also admitted that there was a slight edge of 1.2:1 in sources. There were two support votes that cited 1957 type arguments (and one oppose that mentioned it the other way round, from a WP:NOTCENSORED angle), but all those votes also opined that either the long or short form was the common name, so no need to reject the whole !vote.
In the end my decision to close with consensus to move came down to the fact that there were more supports than opposes (7 to 4 by my count, once the "strong oppose" that was neutral on the UNCF question was removed), basically all of them citing WP:COMMONNAME, along with the actual evidence pointing to a slight favouring in sources for the UNCF form. If I've made any errors of assessment there please let me know. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Right, but if they're all relying on wp:commonname, and as you say, there is no clear-cut common name, doesn't that mean that the status quo should stand, until a clear common name does emerge? Dohn joe (talk) 21:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd like you to review your close of this RM. While you said in the last line "larger number of votes in favour", discounting the "strength" of the votes, the total is even at 6-6. 4 of the the Support votes lack any given merit - exactly the type you said "carry less weight". In particular, Randy Kryn's vote simply addresses the SMcCandlish in a way that suggests that vote was solicited elsewhere and just dropped in as a favor to the nominator. None of the Oppose votes are "less weight" as they each give their views by citing WP policies and external sources. At the very least this should have been closed as no consensus, whereas I consider this a clear Not Moved based on the votes being weighted. -- Netoholic @ 12:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@Dohn joe: @Netoholic: those votes did cite policy, they were all based on WP:COMMONNAME. And as much as it is close, the statistics do show that UNCF is more common than United Negro College Fund. No consensus refers to when there is no clear result based on the points of view put across in the discussion. The fact that the common name is close does not in itself make the result a no consensus, since more people felt we should move than felt we should not move. Yes, some of them added the questionable idea that we shouldn't use the long title because it's outdated or offensive, but those people still pointed out that UNCF is the common name, and the stats agree with them. In the end it's a line call, either name is acceptable, but by a ratio of 7:4, those at the discussion preferred the shorter one. That's a slim consensus to move as I see it. Feel free to take it to move review if you're still not satisfied, and we'll see what the community thinks. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:57, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks again for the reply. I still think there's a logical step missing here, but I'm just as sure that reasonable minds can disagree, and yours is certainly a reasonable mind! No point in going to MRV - the result would definitely be confirmed. Thanks again for your thoughtfulness here. Dohn joe (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
"statistics do show that UNCF is more common than United Negro College Fund". That is the nature of abbreviations... I am sure that "CIA" has higher use stats than Central Intelligence Agency too, but only because abbreviations are used more frequently by their nature. This isn't the standard we should use. Almost no one you ask would know what UNCF is until you gave them the long name, and almost no one is unaware of the United Negro College Fund. This is what WP:COMMONNAME is meant to cover. --Netoholic @ 23:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC

As it's been several months since we talked about this, I wanted to make sure you're aware of this RfC on British railway station names here. Cheers,--Cúchullain t/c 18:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@Cuchullain: thanks for the heads up on this. I have given my opinions in the survey, and also started a side discussion on the related issue of non-location disambiguators. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

NATDIS

Re: 'You say "we've been moving away from unnecessarily parenthetical disambiguation inexorably in many topics" - please could you provide some examples of that?' See years of moves catalogued at WP:BREEDDAB for starters. WT:RM also has a semi-useful search function; you can find a lot more by searching for "natural" and "comma" and "parenthetic" or "parenthetical" and more specific keywords like WP:NATURAL, WP:NATURALDIS, and WP:NATURALDAB. Due to the decentralized way in which RM works, we really don't have a proper archive of RM, and that search seems to be the best we can do.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  21:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: right, yes, I think I asked the owners of the RM bot to consider making an archive page for all the ones it removes from the active list, but they hadn't had the time for developing that yet. It would be a useful feature, certainly. I'll have a look at the examples you mention. Thanks for getting back to me.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello Amakuru:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – —usernamekiran(talk) 12:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)



Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
@Usernamekiran: many thanks for this kind message. A very happy Halloween to you too!  — Amakuru (talk) 16:41, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2017).

Administrator changes

added Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93
removed Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

Technical news

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Reverting edits

Hi! I would like to kindly request that you please stop reverting my edits made to railway stations in Turkey. They have been completely uncontroversial until you started reverting them. I will start a discussion for the multi-moves on the requested moves page. Until a consensus is reached, please stop reverting the edits. I spent around three hours changing all those names and I dont want to have to do it again. Thank you for your understanding. (Central Data Bank (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC))

@Central Data Bank: I will respond to this at Talk:Adana railway station so we can keep the conversation in one place. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Help

Hi! After reading the feedback on my suggested move, it looks as though it will not be changed to my suggested format. Therefore I will redirect the pages I have reverted, however I would like to ask if there is a bot or a quicker way to revert them all because doing it manually takes a lot of time. Also, for some stations such as Basmane station and Koşu station, I am unable to revert them. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! (Central Data Bank (talk) 13:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC))

@Central Data Bank: let's at least wait until someone comes to close the move request at Talk:Adana_railway_station, so we know for certain what the consensus is there. It doesn't have too many participants at the moment, and we should probably ping the railways and stations wikiprojects to get more input. If it is closed as don't move, then I'll be happy to assist you with the moves. It may be possible to do them more speedily with WP:AWB but we'll decide that at the time. Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Hawaii Five-O

I don't know if this edit and this one are something you've done on other dabs, but I don't believe it is incorrect. The title of a show, by itself, is not generally used to refer to individual seasons of a show, so these articles are not considered to be ambiguous with the title, and are not generally listed on a dab. —swpbT go beyond 14:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Swpb: the reason for including those is that for each season there is an incomplete disambiguation redirect, for example Hawaii Five-O (season 1), which points back to the main disambiguation page. Someone coming from that redirect may be looking for either Hawaii Five-O (1968 TV series, season 1) or Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series, season 1), so we present both those possibilities for them on the main dab page. Thanks, and hope that clears things up  — Amakuru (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I wonder then, if there shouldn't be eight other dabs at those redirects, for the eight seasons that both series have, rather than cluttering the main dab with them. —swpbT go beyond 15:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
@Swpb: wouldn't that then be WP:PARTIALDAB? We don't normally create dab pages at locations that are already themselves partially disambiguated, instead we redirect to the base title dab, which in this case is Hawaii Five-O. I'm not sure what the problem is here - the dab page is not especially long at the moment, so it's not like there's a space issue. Readers can easily navigate to whichever topic they want.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Still seems squirrelly to me, but it's fine I guess. —swpbT go beyond 15:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amakuru/Archive_10&oldid=1074758976"