User talk:Amakuru/Archive 11

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

Article split

Hai, I have split Kerala State Film Award (Special Jury Award) per the discussion, and opened a similar discussion to split the article National Film Award – Special Jury Award / Special Mention (Feature Film). Would you care to join.? --Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 09:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

2018 FIFA World Cup Final

With the draw upcoming, I believe the tournament is now close enough to warrant an article on the final. I have also added a substantial section on the venue, which adds a lot of useful information not included on the main World Cup article. S.A. Julio (talk) 07:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@S.A. Julio: OK then, fair enough.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018

So the 2017 WikiCup has come to an end. Congratulations to the winner, to the other finalists and to all those who took part. 177 contestants signed up, more than usual, but not all of them submitted entries in the first round. Were editors attracted by the cash prizes offered for the first time this year, or were these irrelevant? Do the rules and scoring need changing for the 2018 WikiCup? If you have a view on these or other matters, why not join in the WikiCup discussion about next year's contest? Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Plasma (physics)

Amakuru, you have closed the request for comment at Plasma (physics), saying "there is a rough consensus for version 2, and something like that has already been inserted into the article". And yet what is "already inserted into the article" is, essentially, version 1, which only received the support of one editor. This is a technical article, and technical distinctions are important. I invite you to reconsider your summary and closure of the request for comment. Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Attic Salt (talk • contribs) 13:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Attic Salt: apologies, I did see your message on the page itself, but didn't have time to look at it - I did mean to get back to you. Are you unhappy with the lead at the moment then, and do you want the opening paragraph to be replaced with version 2 of the survey? I'm happy to clarify that and make that change if you wish it, since that was the consensus in the discussion. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Whether or not I'm unhappy with the lede is not my concern at this point. My concern is the principle of seeing the RFC through to sensible conclusion. Option 1 is essentially the status quo, what we have now (not sure why there is a slight difference). Option 2 is what most editors supported. Thank you, Attic Salt (talk) 13:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
@Attic Salt: no, it is important whether you're unhappy with it. Remember, RfCs exist to help editors work through issues with articles. They are not a suicide pact or to make a rod for our own backs. If there are no editors who are unhappy with a particular arrangement, then there's no reason to change it, even if the result of a particular RfC said otherwise. This is essentially a variant of WP:IAR. Remember this RfC was started some time ago, and it may be that in the mean time the editors concerned have independently come up with a version of the lede that everyone is happy with. If that's the case, then there's no need to change it. But if you or anyone else doesn't like the way it is now then, as I say, I'm happy to go and insert the version 2 from the RfC myself.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I am unhappy with the status quo -- option 1 that only received support of 1 editor. I am unhappy that option 2, which received the support of 5 editors has not been inserted into the lede. An RFC was called for a reason, to settle some disagreement and to help move the article forward. Until we have motion consistent with the outcome of the RFC, I'm unhappy, yes. Attic Salt (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
@Attic Salt: OK thanks for clarifying. I have replaced the text. Apologies if it seemed like I was being difficult, but I didn't want to go in and make a change to the article if actually everyone concerned had moved on from the issue anyway. Thanks again.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Civil Rights Movement

Please give notice to alert each of the projects listed on the talk pages of the RM. I'd do it but in America this is a national holiday. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

  • @Randy Kryn: OK, I've notified all the WikiProjects mentioned on the talk page header. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait a second, I take back my thanks. Your notification tag includes both an argument for your position and includes the lower-case in the title. Please change those, as I cannot change another editor's postings. Thanks? Randy Kryn (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
    @Randy Kryn: I notified the projects of the move, giving the rationale for the move. That's perfectly normal, it's just giving the context for the move. Users coming to the discussion from Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions would also see the rationale too.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
    • You headlined the sections with your hoped-for lower-cased result, please upper-case those section titles to their present usage. You also use the wording "because reliable sources don't appear to treat them as proper names" which should be "some reliable sources". Your case and language use seems biased, even if it may seem, to you, a subtle bias. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
      @Randy Kryn: fine. I don't particularly agree with your concern, but it doesn't matter either way to me so I've reduced the text accordingly. I hope you have a happy Thanksgiving day by the way. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
      • Thanks, and thanks for the happy wishes. I'm a vegan (or close enough to claim most of the term) so, in America, where the mass slaughter of turkeys is honored on this day, it has a bitter-sweet twang to it. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 November 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2017

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

Administrator changes

added Joe Roe
readded JzG
removed Ericorbit • Perceval • Thingg • Tristanb • Violetriga

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
  • The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Amakuru. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Henry Bolton Move

Hi, could you review your decision on the Henry Bolton move request Talk:Henry_Bolton_(British_politician)? Page usage for Henry Bolton has settled down to a level of about 300 views per day which is comparable to major front bench members of the government in the UK such as Jeremy Hunt, Liam Fox, Greg Clark, Chris Grayling and Sajid Javid. His opinions on Brexit, immigration, security and other topics are likely to remain of high interest because of his career experience and position as leader of UKIP. None of the other people on the disambiguation page come close to this level of interest. Even if his page views were to drop by a factor of ten he would still be the primary topic. I know there was some opposition to the move but these have to be weighted according to how well they addressed the relevant Wikipedia policies i.e. WP:Primary topic. Weburbia (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Weburbia: I think it's a bit too long ago now for amending or reviewing the decision, and in any case I don't think there is really grounds to overturn it based on what we knew at the time. It was no consensus because both supports and opposes made valid points in arguing for and against PTOPIC status. I see you've also raised this on the talk page, and I think the advice there is sensible. Wait a while for things to settle down, and then start a fresh RM with the best evidence you have. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Civil rights

Thanks for trying again on these overcapped titles. Will you be working on the post-move cleanup of those? Need help? Dicklyon (talk) 01:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: thanks for the message, and that's great that those strange capped titles are now in more sensible case. Unfortunately I'm very short of spare time at the moment, so won't be on Wiki very much. If you're able to help out with those, that would be great. What in particular are you referring to? Are there a lot of sub-pages and things to sort out? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
No problem, I'll do the basic post-move cleanup, making the articles use the same lowercase as their new titles. Fixing all the places they're linked will be an ongoing incremental thing. Dicklyon (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
@Dicklyon: and hello Amakuru. The RM didn't resolve the upper-case term Civil Rights Movement as a redirect to the admittedly convoluted name 'African American civil rights movement' which is seldom used outside of Wikipedia. I thought that after the RM closed that some editors wanted a further discussion to determine a real name, and Civil Rights Movement would be one of those names debated. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I have no objection except to the caps. See data. Dicklyon (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I did a pass over African-American civil rights movement (1954–1968). It's a huge article, so a lot of work, trying not to downcase reference titles while downcasing all the overcapped "Civil Rights X" in the text. More later. Dicklyon (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: @Randy Kryn: thanks for the work on tidying up after the move. Regarding the name, I think I would happy with a simple "Civil rights movement" title. The years seem redundant to me, given that the corresponding primary pages already redirect here, and the inclusion of African-American doesn't really match WP:COMMONNAME either. On the caps, I agree with Dicklyon, there doesn't seem to be evidence that it should be re-capped just because we use the more concise form. A large majority of sources treat it as sentence case: [1] Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
We seem to be in agreement except for the caps, so maybe a new RM at some point soon. You know, I've never really focused on editing the page, mainly because I have my own point-of-view of what would be an accurate summary and history of the movement from 1955 to 1968. I wrote that up in the last RM a couple of years ago or more, and haven't read it since, but maybe I'll pop it in somewhere for a few moments. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 December 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018

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

Administrator changes

added Muboshgu
readded Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned
removed None

Bureaucrat changes

readded Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Team Virtu Cycling Women

I see you have moved Team Virtu Cycling Women back to the old Veloconcept name. The teams name for the 2018 season is Team Virtu Cycling Women, I will move the page back to this title as per the UCI and Pro Cycling Stats. XyZAn (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@XyZAn: alright, thanks for showing me those sources, that looks like enough evidence not to need to go back to another RM. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Newcourt railway station

Why have you moved a move-protected article which has no RM discussion? I specifically stated on the talk page that the article should not be moved without a RM (see article talk page and User talk:Mjroots/Archive/Admin#Newcourt (Exeter) railway station where I asked you on 29 September 2016 to open a RM discussion. You failed to open such discussion. Please return it to the previous title. Mjroots (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mjroots: please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains#RfC:_UK_railway_station_disambiguation. We finally had a project-wide RfC discussion there in the latter part of 2017 (partly in response to debates such as the one at Newcourt), and a consensus was established regarding the disambiguation of all UK stations, which is now detailed at WP:UKSTATIONDAB. I've moved the Newcourt article to be in line with the decision made at that RfC, which is to use (country name) as a suffix in the first instance, unless that is not specific enough. I'm going to be moving quite a few articles according to that new convention in the coming weeks, and I think the RfC supersedes the need for an RM on every one. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
OK, but where's the hatnote? Mjroots (talk) 14:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
@Mjroots: I thought a hatnote might not be necessary per Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Usage_guidelines - technically the name Newcourt railway station (England) is not ambiguous, as the other station of that name is in Ireland not England. However, there are exceptions to that rule, and if you think it would be better to include a hatnote then I'm happy to add one in.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
It's still a Newcourt railway station though. So yes, a hatnote is needed at both article per WP:TWODABS. Mjroots (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
@Mjroots: Not necessarily. The two articles are already disambiguated, it's only the parent disambiguation page, Newcourt railway station, which is ambiguous. This situation is like the John Quested example mentioned at WP:TWODABS. John Quested is a dab page, because there's no primary topic, and the individual articles are at John Quested (RAF officer) and John Quested (producer). Note that neither of those two individual articles have a hatnote, because they are already fully disambiguated. It's the same with Newcourt railway station (England) and Newcourt railway station (Ireland). The only occasion in which you might consider a hatnote, is if readers are likely to come to the wrong article from an external source (e.g. Google), and be unsure which of the two articles they have arrived at. That seems unlikely, though, as the (England) and (Ireland) disambiguators will be visible from a Google search too. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
A hat note isn't needed if the article title isn't ambiguous, as it would be at Newcourt railway station. Adding (England) makes this title unambiguous, so no hatnote necessary.--Cúchullain t/c 19:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • That RfC closed as " Use Xxx railway station (Location) for all stations" There is nothing there to support your making specific disambiguators into uselessly broad ones, such as Newbridge railway station, Caerphilly into Newbridge railway station (Wales). Andy Dingley (talk) 11:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
    @Andy Dingley: The RfC actually did explicitly decide what Location should be, that was the second question. And the consensus was for it to be country (England, Scotland, Wales etc) rather than county or settlement, as long as the country was sufficiently unambiguous. I didn't have a strong opinion on that myself, I was more concerned with the plac8ng of parentheses in the middle of the title. But that was the decision. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Andy Dingley: Amakuru is correct. WP:UKSTATION has already been updated to reflect the consensus.--Cúchullain t/c 21:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Are they? I don't see that poorly-supported and variant RfC advocating bulk changes!
There is one Newbridge in Caerphilly. There are something like half-a-dozen in Wales overall. Same with Newport, Llanvihangel et al. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Andy Dingley: Yes, they are. Re-read the RfC. This change explicitly laid out in the closing statement, after getting a decisive consensus from participants. The RfC was well attended and well advertised. It’s true that we’d still use the county/local community if there were multiple stations of the same name in Wales, but that doesn’t appear to be the case here.—Cúchullain t/c 15:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
"Decisive" would be a bit much, even for the first question. I see far less support for the second point. Mostly though, I don't see a discussion over a format being sufficient reason to start renaming existing and stable articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I’d regard it as decisive, and apparently the closer agreed. Re moving articles, that was the entire point.—Cúchullain t/c 15:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley: yes, I agree with Cuchullain's interpretation. The whole reason why the RfC was started in the first place was to address the glaring inconsistency in naming of UK railway stations. I've made a list of all the examples I could find at User:Amakuru/Disambiguated stations, and there were a large number of different formats being used, with no actual underlying guideline written anywhere. If we weren't going to move existing articles based on the RfC, to achieve the desired WP:CONSISTENCY policy, then there would have been really no point in holding it. The RfC was listed on all the rail and station project pages, was reasonably well attended, and ran for several months, so I don't see any valid reason to ignore its outcome.
As for the specific case of Newbridge, there are precisely two Newbridge stations on Wikipedia - you can see them listed at the disambiguation page. If either one of them didn't exist, the other would be called with the plain name "Newbridge railway station". No Caerphilly or other identifier at all. As it is, we need a disambiguator to separate them from each other, not from anything else, so I don't see why "Wales" does any worse a job for that than "Caerphilly". Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 10:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
So look at your own list, and from just the very first two entries your scheme fails: Aber railway station and Alexandra Dock railway station. Both of these are in Wales / England. One is sensibly disambiguatable at the county level, but not the country. The other is for two stations adjacent to each other, and the only rational way to disambiguate is by the operating company. Both of these are common situations.
Your new idea of changing everything existing to a country disambiguator is unworkable for such cases. It's also another (absolutely typical) piece of Wiki make-work, inventing something that needs to be done, but is actually making things worse. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
The disambiguator is not unworkable, because the new guidelines at WP:UKSTATIONDAB spell out exactly what to do where two stations fall in the same country - we then go to county level. As I said above, I had no particular preference for whether the guidline should use country or county as the first level, you could certainly make a case to do it as county throughout, but that's not what the RfC decided. Remember, the disambiguator is not part of the title, it is there purely to separate the subject from other articles of the same name. And as for it being make-work, you don't have to participate in the moves, but I don't see how following a clearly defined pattern for identification rather than the hodge-podge of formats we currently have is going to make matters any worse for anyone. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Railway station templates

Hello and thanks for your work on standardising station article names. Are you planning any template changes? I ask because I've recently been helping out with replacing "Foo Railway Station" by "Foo railway station" in article titles and elsewhere. I've created the necessary redirects where missing and am ready to start editing templates to expect lower case titles. It's unlikely to affect the UK much but I just wanted to make you aware in case we can find some synergies, or at least avoid tripping over each other. Thanks, Certes (talk) 14:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Certes: thanks for your message. I'm not aware of any templates that will need changing at this moment in time, but I could be wrong. The main one I've seen in use is {{stnlnk}} but that seems to handle the situation correctly regardless of which format of disambiguator is used. See for example:
two articles which currently use a different format, but the same template formatting covers both. If you can think of any other templates that I may need to look at, then do please let me know. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. It looks as if everything already works for you, as the relevant templates already deal with the new format. (I have the problem that if someone creates Newplace railway station, some templates will look only for Newplace Railway Station.) Certes (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Joshua Claybourn for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joshua Claybourn is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Claybourn (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Notifying you about the discussion, since you have made significant contributions to articles related to this subject. --IndyNotes (talk) 04:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
  • Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news

  • A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 February 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Sarah Brown

I withdrew the RM and am thinking of going with a multi-choice version, using a table. What do you think?

Draft: Talk:Sarah Jane Brown/table

Thanks! --В²C ☎ 23:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Civil rights movement clarification

Thanks for your clarification of what this is about: I didn't know that there was no general article on civil rights movements. I removed the whole bit on my "oppose", since I didn't know how else to remove my vote. I respect what has already been said there and know too little about civil rights movements worldwide to take a position here. Jzsj (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jzsj: OK, thanks. Actually, we do have an article of the sort you describe, it's at Civil rights movements. I hadn't realised that, and may be an interesting point which I will bring up at the discussion. But the singular term Civil rights movement has pointed to the African-American movement of the sixties for quite some time, so "primary topic" is already established in that sense. Thakns  — Amakuru (talk) 14:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

SJB

After your last comment, I've got nothing to add, and that's saying something. By the way, I think what you said there lays the groundwork for a solid move review. It's apparent the closers really didn't even get the objection to the current title. --В²C ☎ 21:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Born2cycle: well thanks, I'll take that as a compliment! You might be right, although I'm not certain I'd have that much faith in a move review, which is why I set out to try to get something more out of Tony and the panel directly. MRV is great for overturning obviously bogus closes, but when it comes to line calls and tough discussions, you tend to get a wall of endorses, I suppose because people don't like to accuse closers of doing a bad job. I might be wrong though, and if the discussion with Tony peters out and you want to pursue it, I would be happy to participate there too. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
There are at least two major oversights I can see. First the apparent ignoring of the natural disambiguation point, as made evident by their repeated referring to the current title as natural disambiguation. Second, by counting raw !votes and not at all counting (the more more relevant) weighted !votes. --В²C ☎ 21:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
@Born2cycle: yes, I absolutely agree with you, those are flaws in the close that ought to be addressed, and if MRV worked well, arguments to that effect should win the day. Experience suggests, though, that a lot of people will endorse it, including those who argue that this argument is pointless in the first place, and no MRV closing admin will stick their neck out and close as "overturn" or "relist" when faced with such a wall of endorses. Who knows, though, it might have a chance.
Incidentally, I'm now regretting my oppose to your original request. The "education campaigner" thing would probably have been better, and quite a few people were advocating "born 1963" in that debate too, which is now my favoured compromise title and could have succeeded if we'd continued the straight RM. I had naive faith at that time that there was a possibility of getting to "(wife of Gordon Brown)", but that has been sadly dashed against the rocks, and anyway, in the cold light of day it's clear that construct wouldn't be the stable title we want just because so many people vehemently dislike it.
Thinking outside the box a little, what would you say to the idea of a straight yes/no RM to Sarah Brown (born 1963), with no alternative suggestions allowed, "wife of GB" off the table, and policy-based reasons set out clearly? I pick that disambiguator because it seemed to have the most supports vs opposes of the parentheticals on offer. Anyone who dislikes the current title and wants parentheses should !vote for that option, otherwise they !vote for the status quo. Obviously we'd have to get around the moratorium that's just been imposed, but I think that if there was a genuine chance of such an RM succeeding, it might be allowed. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for recognizing that (better late than never). I was surprised and disappointed by the opposition to that earlier compromise RM of mine by fellow supporters of following usage in reliable sources. That said, I would support any reasonable parenthetic disambiguation over the current title, including "born 1963". I also think the whole concept of moratoriums on proposals is bs (see: User:Born2cycle/FAQ#RM_proposal_moratoriums). Still, it might be possible to override consensus to override it, though given the recent AN/I I'm probably not the best one to start anything there... --В²C ☎ 16:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018).

Administrator changes

added Lourdes†
removed AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V
† Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news

  • The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
  • Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
  • A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
  • A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news

  • CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
  • The edit filter has a new feature contains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

Miscellaneous

Obituaries

  • Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 March newsletter

And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. With 53 contestants qualifying, the groups for round 2 are slightly smaller than usual, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining users.

Our top scorers in round 1 were:

  • United States Aoba47 led the field with a featured article, 8 good articles and 42 GARs, giving a total of 666 points.
  • Germany FrB.TG , a WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points, gained from a featured article and masses of bonus points.
  • India Ssven2, another WikiCup newcomer, was in third place with 403 points, garnered from a featured article, a featured list, a good article and twelve GARs.
  • United States Ceranthor, India Numerounovedant, Minnesota Carbrera, Netherlands Farang Rak Tham and Romania Cartoon network freak all had over 200 points, but like all the other contestants, now have to start again from scratch. A good achievement was the 193 GARs performed by WikiCup contestants, comparing very favourably with the 54 GAs they achieved.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) and Vanamonde (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Map of roads in Rwanda

Hello Amakuru,

thanks for your good work on the map of roads: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RwandaRoads.jpg Fortunately it has become outdated, as more roads have become paved. E.g. the road between Rubavu and Karongi (btw city names should also be updated) and possibly between Karongi and Kamembe (not sure about this). Also the notice in the bottom right is not correct anymore. A naming system has been introduced to all National and District Roads. I would appreciate, if you could update the image, as I will update the article on transport in Rwanda.

--13:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Askuri97 (talk • contribs)

@Askuri97: thanks for the heads up on this. You're absolutely right, there is now a new numbering system and I'll check about the paved roads too, and hopefully update the map in the near future. Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
@Amakuru: You may check the official website of the RDTA, which provides a lot of helpful information and an interactive map: http://www.rtda.gov.rw/ --Askuri97 (talk) 06:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Signpost issue 4 – 29 March 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2018).

Administrator changes

added 331dot • Cordless Larry • ClueBot NG
removed Gogo Dodo • Pb30 • Sebastiankessel • Seicer • SoLando

Guideline and policy news

  • Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
  • Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
  • The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
  • The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.

Miscellaneous

  • A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
  • The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Ha! Weird times, nearly edit conflicted whilst reversing my move:) Thank You! ~ Winged BladesGodric 16:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: he he, guess I should have left it for you to do then... I just wasn't sure what time you would be back online to do the reversal and it seemed like people in the project were getting quite upset about the matter, so I went ahead and did it myself! Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
No qualms:) And, again thanks for your move! Best, ~ Winged BladesGodric 04:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
And, I've to fall back on you to execute the portal move, for whilst I've vacated the target(s) by mass-draftifying the redirects, I'm unable to move the source into the now-redlinks, courtesy sysop-move-protection.~ Winged BladesGodric 04:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

INVOLVED

Please refrain from using your role as a sysop to decide on matters in which you are involved and have made clear statements regarding. For more information please review WP:INVOLVED. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Please account for your actions immediately per WP:ADMINACCOUNT. You are continuing to violate policy by removing valid speedy tags on pages you have a vested opinion in existing. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
@Coffee: please just calm down and try to move on from this whole issue. The decision was made to refund, I didn't decide that all by myself, and I'm now putting the portal into order. I'm not going to leave things with messy tags and in the wrong locations, just because you and I have different opinions about its name, and you're apparently not happy with the decision that was reached in the discussion. This becoming a little tiresome now. Let's get the portal back into a useful state and move on with our lives. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Modern sporting rifle listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Modern sporting rifle. Since you had some involvement with the Modern sporting rifle redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Abote2 (talk) 14:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

On this day, 2 years ago...

Wishing Amakuru a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Lepricavark (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Happy Admin Anniversary!

Wishing Amakuru a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
@Lepricavark: @UNSC Luke 1021: thanks for the anniversary greetings. Much appreciated!  — Amakuru (talk) 08:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Scheiße I didn't realize Lepricavark already did it lol UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 11:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
@UNSC Luke 1021: no matter... two greetings is better than one!  — Amakuru (talk) 11:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban on Gryffindor

You closed the discussion regarding Gryffindor here but I don't see a notification on his talk page or it being logged at WP:RESTRICT.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter: apologies, it's the first time I closed a topic ban discussion, and I didn't read the instructions fully. I've now posted the notification and logged it. Thanks for letting me know.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry

Hi, Sorry about this[2], I had your talkpage and his open and unfortunately got the wrong editor so my apologies for that, Thanks for reverting the editor as well as for your closure of that discussion, Happy editing, –Davey2010Talk 20:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Davey2010: thanks, and no worries about the accidental posting of the message in the wrong space. It happens to us all sometimes!  — Amakuru (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Trap music (hip hop)

Please reopen the discussion, as it was closed prematurely. There was a preexisting consensus to rename the article "Trap music (hip hop)" which is why the RfC was made in the first place. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 10:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Jon Davis (basketball)

Could you please undelete this article because I just added sources to show notability. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 20:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Editorofthewiki:  Done I have restored the article as you requested. I had a quick look and I'm not sure the guy is yet notable enough to merit an article, but happy to let you run with it and people can nominate it for AFD if they see fit. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Also, would you mind unprotecting Terry Henderson since he is a notable basketball player and has an article on the Spanish Wikipedia see es:Terry Henderson ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 15:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
      @Editorofthewiki:  Done too. The original article which was deleted was regarding a different Terry Henderson, a non-notable businessman of some sort. So you should be fine to go ahead and create one for the basketball player. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Justifiable 30-500 page locked?

Hi there! I wanted to ask you if this article called "Palestine Airways" was needed to lock behind a 30-500 request.

It is supposed to be used against when it comes to the Israeli-Palestine conflict but this article takes place during British Palestine, before the modern states of Israel & Palestine existed.

I feel like there is an abuse of power being used and the revision history proves my point: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestine_Airways&action=history

Can you check if there was an abuse of power?Crowtow849 (talk) 04:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@Crowtow849: sorry for the delay responding to this. On your immediate question, I certainly wouldn't call the action an abuse of power. The Palestine Airways article is fairly clearly within scope of the Israel-Palestine arena, so it's not unreasonable to apply the sanctions as mandated by ArbCom for that arena. On the actual issue at hand, it seems relatively minor given that the term "British Palestine" is already in the lead paragraph. If you really want to pursue the matter than I suggest either a note on the protecting editor's talk page, or a discussion on the talk page of the article is the way forward. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:IOTA (cryptocurrency)

Per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:IOTA (cryptocurrency), you revdel'd some edits from this draft. Today, a new user has come along and put the same text back; I have removed it, but would you revdel again? Many thanks! Dorsetonian (talk) 11:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Dorsetonian: OK  Done - thanks for letting me know.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks! Dorsetonian (talk) 12:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 May newsletter

The second round of the 2018 WikiCup has now finished. Most contestants who advanced to the next round scored upwards of 100 points, but two with just 10 points managed to scrape through into round 3. Our top scorers in the last round were:

  • Scotland Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with three featured articles
  • Republic of Texas Iazyges, with nine good articles and lots of bonus points
  • India Yashthepunisher, a first time contestant, with two featured lists
  • Cascadia (independence movement) SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with seventeen good topic articles
  • United States Usernameunique, a first time contestant, with fourteen DYKs
  • San Francisco Muboshgu, a seasoned competitor, with three ITNs and
  • South Carolina Courcelles, another first time contestant, with twenty-seven GARs

So far contestants have achieved twelve featured articles between them and a splendid 124 good articles. Commendably, 326 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2018 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met; most of the GARs are fine, but a few have been a bit skimpy.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Chochopk • Coffee • Gryffindor • Jimp • Knowledge Seeker • Lankiveil • Peridon • Rjd0060

Guideline and policy news

  • The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely restricted to autoconfirmed users.
  • A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.

Technical news

  • AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
  • When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
  • The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
  • There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amakuru/Archive_11&oldid=1090480350"