User talk:Amakuru/Archive 9

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

Talk:Voting system move

You commented on this debate already, and your voice would be welcome again. Homunq (࿓) 00:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for sticking around. We disagree, but such reasoned debate makes for a better decision whichever way it goes. Homunq (࿓) 15:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Homunq thanks, and I very much agree. We're all shooting for the same goal here, which is to improve the encyclopedia, and by discussing things we come up with the best outcome. Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I actually think this is winding to a close. If you respond to my latest, then, presuming you don't bring up any new issues that haven't been touched in the long discussion so far, I expect I won't respond in turn. At that point, the discussion will be as ready as it ever will be for closing. I don't envy the person who has to close it, but I do think that it's pretty clear that the current title is not ideal. Homunq (࿓) 17:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, you misconstrued a quote from me. Though I believe you did so in good faith, I had to respond, despite what I said here just above. But I think both sides are clear now and I'd be willing to live with whatever outcome the closer decides. Homunq (࿓) 20:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I think your voice would be useful again over there. Homunq (࿓) 17:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing plurality voting system. I did that move when I thought the RM would be routine, but yes, it was premature. You can't just click "thank" for moves, but good job.
BTW, you may be interested in the discussion at WP:DRN. Homunq (࿓) 12:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

On this day, 11 years ago...

Hey, Amakuru. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Mz7 (talk) 01:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
@Mz7: oh, thank you very much. What a pleasant surprise on this February morning. Eleven years, eh? Who would've thought it!  — Amakuru (talk) 08:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Howard Beach–JFK Airport move

Just saw you contested all the moves after I had finished the cleanup for this one. I agree that the larger ones with things such as street names and other MOS stuff would probably be best discussed in an RM, but thought this one would be fine (and there were only three requests, not six when I saw it.) Feel free to revert my move here if you want. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi TonyBallioni - I've started a discussion with Pppery on this at their talk page. I don't have a strong opinion on this, only that there are a lot of examples of this out there, and almost every NYC subway station is consistent in using a disambiguator, even where one isn't needed, so it seemed like we might want a wider discussion on the whole set. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Makes sense now that I see it is going to be a relatively large request. I don't have a strong opinion either, and have to get off for real life for a decent bit now, so don't have the time to undo it. Like I said, I have no objection to a rollback here if you think it best. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rwandan Civil War

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Rwandan Civil War you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lemurbaby -- Lemurbaby (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Southern American English dispute

Hello, I got your name off and active list of admins. I was wondering if you could please help in regards to this topic: On the southern American English page, Me, along with Kelthan and Dubyavee ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Southern_American_English#Delete_image ) opposed taking the map off. It was originally removed without any edit summary. Since it was sourced, I heard you can't remove content without justification. That's three opinions against one that have given feedback on this. I took this to Bilcat who reverted our edits. I politely contacted Bilcat on his talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BilCat&action=history), and he immediately removed and ignored my message. Can you please help? If you look at the history page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Southern_American_English&action=history You can see both Kelthan and I were against taking the map off. And there was a previous discussion about this on the talk page here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Southern_American_English#Delete_image where Dubyavee disagreed with taking the map off. Bilcat then reverted this falsely claiming the consensus was against this. The map was originally taken off without given and edit summary, despite it being sourced. Can you please help? Thanks. Kevinfromtx (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

2017 Kids' Choice Awards

Please restore the full protection on this page until March 12.  Please contact User:Jo-Jo Eumerus for questions about the AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Kids' Choice Awards.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 01:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Unscintillating: yes, I saw the AfD in question, but as was mentioned in the nomination for moving of the page, the date of March 12 did not match the consensus in the discussion. Most participants called for deletion until the nominations were announced, which was in February. I don't want to tread on Jo-Jo Eumerus's toes, so if he wants to assert protection per the AfD until March 12 that's fine with me - Jo-Jo please advise if that's the case. But unless Jo-Jo objects, I don't see a reason to keep this protected any longer. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
You were the only one in the nom who wanted it locked until the 12th @Unscintillating:; that was unsustainable and eventually someone created the article under the wrong title. I wasn't going to do a WP:DR just for the sake of WP:BURO and all of my efforts to open the title with confirmed information failed. As I said in the pagemove discussion, I had no objections once the noms were released and I wasn't going to delete under the wrong title just to make someone think they wasted their time in creating an article that could be created if not for Gabucho181 being a pain on kidvid articles going back years. If not for them, we wouldn't have even had to lock out the title. Nate • (chatter) 14:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't care enough about the exact duration of the protection to complain. Folks in AfD were recommending a temporary protection and Unscintillating was the only one to offer a timeframe, so I went for that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The creation of an article at a misspelling is exactly the type of disruption predicted in the AfD.  There was no discussion of the protection either before or after the RM, so an obvious interpretation is that the editors at the move didn't know about the Draft article and want to continue editing there so as not to disturb the protection.  The only purpose of having this article on Wikipedia's main space currently is to promote the event.  As for the concept of consensus, consensus is not a vote count, and isolating one !vote and claiming that it was at the edge of consensus is not consistent with what defines consensus on Wikipedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2017

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

Administrator changes

Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13
Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
  • Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
  • A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Change of Page Title

Hi Amakuru - please can you review my response regarding the page 'Andrew Jeptha' many thanks MikeJep (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

MoS and COMMONNAME

At an RM, you commented "I don't support the notion that our MOS automatically overrides WP:COMMONNAME on purely stylistic questions. Where sources overwhelmingly style something a certain way, so should we." The conflict you imagine does not exist, since MOS:TM, the guideline covering stylization of names, has essentially the same rule.

Where actual conflicts usually arise is when a particular camp misinterprets COMMONNAME as saying something it does not, e.g. to use the most common name in highly specialized sources – which often prefer some aberrant stylistic quirk like over-capitalization or not hyphenating compound modifiers, that the party in question wants to impose on Wikipedia to match what they are used to in their academic journal or their rapper fan magazines (or whatever the "field" is) – and they then try to override MoS with a bogus COMMONNAME argument, misapplying the "policy trumps guideline" reasoning. It's bogus because:

  1. COMMONNAME does not favor specialist sources, anywhere, and MoS actually disfavors them for style matters (see MOS:FAQ), because they are not more reliable for how to write an encyclopedia for a general audience, they're only more reliable about factual material particular to their field. (Belief otherwise is the WP:Specialized-style fallacy, and it is absurd on its face.) Example: whether so-and-so fossil is a dinosaur or something else is a matter that a specialized work or set of works can tell us. They do not tell us whether we have to write "Dinosaur" or "dino-saur" or "Dino Saur" versus "dinosaur" (to contrive an example, but one that has many parallels in medical and other jargon the treatment of which is inconsistent). The reliable sources for that style matter are a) what mainstream style guides say about it, and b) how major, general-audience publishers (newspapers, Oxford U. Press, etc.) treat it. MoS is already based on examinations of both, which is why its rules work about 99.9% of the time.

    MOS:TM is the escape valve for unusual cases where almost all RS do something they wouldn't normally do for a parallel case. Examples: Virtually all RS write iPhone instead of IPhone (except at the beginning of a sentence, where this spelling is common) or Iphone or I-Phone, and write Deadmau5 instead of Deadmaus. These are both special cases of going along with unusual trademark stylization, when the same publishers would not write Alien3 in imitation of movie poster logos but use Alien 3, and would not write "P!nk" to mimic album covers but use "Pink" for the singer.

  2. COMMONNAME is not a style policy; it's the policy that tells us what the common name of someone or something is at all, regardless how it is styled by various writers, which varies widely for a large number of things (this lack of consistency is why MoS exists in the first place, to pick an option among many so editors stop fighting about style trivia and get back to work). Example, from MR: "J. J. Watt", "J.J. Watt", "JJ Watt", "J J Watt" are all the same name for COMMONNAME purposes, versus something else like "Justin James Watt" or something even more different like "J. J. McDougal" or "X. B. Watt". There is no "COMMONSTYLE" policy and never will be one; what you are looking for is MOS:TM already, and it already says that do what the RS do if the RS are consistently in favor of one style in particular (a rule found elsewhere in MOS, e.g. at MOS:CAPS, etc.).

    Why the MOS:TM material is not in WP:AT policy is because style trivia like this doesn't rise to policy level. Readers may be genuinely confused if something that has a recognizable, precise, natural, and concise name (see WP:CRITERIA) – which is usually the most common name in sources – is for some inexplicable reason put under a completely different article title here. Thus we have a titles policy. But no one is likely to be confused by a tiny spelling or punctuation difference in most cases, and WP:Common sense, WP:IAR, and WP:SMALLDETAILS apply in such a case. We have guidelines not policies about style nit-picks mainly for consistency and to curtail the habit of editwarring over minutiae. Remember (or become aware) that WP:AT originated as part of MoS; the present article-titles policy is the thin cream off the top of the style guidelines that were the matters the community decided were so crucial they had to be elevated to policy, i.e. the only style stuff that was essential to WP functioning properly as an encyclopedia and as a community/project. That's the real operational distinction of policies from guidelines; the latter are just evolved best practices for helping those goals be achieved smoothly, while policies ensure they can be achieved at all. If you go through all the policies and the guidelines you'll see that this is true, even if WP:POLICY doesn't get around to explaining it in quite those terms.

There is a misperception of conflict about COMMONNAME, because people will !vote with comments like "Spell/punctuate/capitalize it this way, per COMMONNAME" when they really should write "per MOS:TM", and then when other people point out that COMMONNAME has nothing to do with style and they're presenting a broken rationale, the first party's head asplode in confusion and disbelief, because they have not closely read the relevant policies and guidelines and are making incorrect assumptions about what COMMONNAME actually says. It's exactly the same sort of (very common) error as asserting "this is trademarked under copyright law", or "this is a patent under trademark law". Yes, they're all forms of intellectual property, but they are different regulatory regimes for different types of things, just as COMMONNAME and MOS:TM are superficially similar Wikipedia rules of thumb about names, but are also different regulatory regimes for different types of concerns. Or, if you like, it's analogous to arguing that person A should not be mentioned in person B's bio because A is not notable, when WP:Notability has nothing to do with who/what can be mentioned in an article, only with who/what can have a separate article; the correct policy to cite about in-article relevance is WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, which is a totally different document with different concerns, even if to the casual observer it's easy to confuse them as they both touch on inclusion and encyclopedic relevance in different contexts.

PS: I've taken the time to cover this stuff because I'm betting that just helping one admin, who may be involved in RM and related matters, per month to dispel the misbelief in a conflict between AT and MOS could be enough for a positive sea change in strife levels over the course of a year or so, given the current size of the admin pool involved in relevant closes, and how frequently requested moves and similar style RfCs involve the same issues and confusions, yet the unfortunate frequency with which closer give conflicting closes, often based on incorrect interpretation of COMMONNAME.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

User talk:EdRooney

Just a quick heads up, I reverted your deletion of this user talk (and then immediately deleted the problematic content in question on it). User talk pages are almost never deleted - editors may need to look through the user's history for warnings, for example. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the heads up Ritchie333. I'll bear that in mind next time, and just delete the revisions only. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017

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

Administrator changes

added TheDJ
removed Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
  • The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
  • An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
  • After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news

  • After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
  • Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Translation into Kirundi

Hello, Amakuru. I saw how you reformatted Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation (Rwanda) back in February, and I decided to do the same at Ministry of External Relations and International Cooperation (Burundi). But, I have a certain problem: I saw that, at the Rwandan article, you translated the name of the ministry into Kinyarwanda (Minisiteri y'Ububanyi n'Amahanga n'ubutwererane), and I tried to do the same at the Burundian article – namely, to translate Ministry of External Relations and International Cooperation into Kirundi. Still, I was unable to find a correct and reliable translation online, so I must ask you for help with it. I am really not familiar with local African languages in any way, so I would really appreciate your input here. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

First adminship anniversary!

Wishing Amakuru a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
@Chris troutman: thank you very much, the greeting is much appreciated!  — Amakuru (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Queen(')s Road Peckham

I have started a discussion about redirects to Queens Road Peckham railway station and the road it is named for at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport#Queen(')s Road Peckham. As you have had involvement with one or more of the existing redirects, your comments are invited there. Thryduulf (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017

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

Administrator changes

added Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim
removed Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

  • Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Release of Palmyra

I can't figure out why Release of palmyra was deleted by you. Would you mind elaborating on this? Thanks. --Mhhossein talk 11:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Mhhossein: the redirect was requested for speedy deletion by HyperGaruda, on the grounds that "Release of Palmyra" is not a semantically plausible title. I agreed with the rationale, and therefore deleted the redirect. The term in question yields almost nothing on Google, and is therefore not a useful redirect on Wikipedia. "Liberation of Palmyra" would be the usual way of phrasing that. As a side note, even if the term itself was legitimate, the casing is wrong. "Palmyra" should have a capital letter. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. "Release of Palmyra" seems much more reasonable. --Mhhossein talk 12:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Improper RM close; please help

Greetings Amakuru! I noticed that an inexperienced user made an improper close of Talk:Donald Trump disclosure of classified information to Russia#Requested move 17 May 2017: the discussion was only open 3 days, it's not an obvious SNOW and the closer is involved. I would have reverted and explained what he did wrong, but I'm involved too. Could you please take a look at the matter and dispense some sage advice? Many thanks in advance, — JFG talk 20:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Never mind, somebody else intervened. Happy Sunday! — JFG talk 21:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
@JFG: OK, thanks!

Template:ITN

Please reverse your edit to the image, as discussed at WP:MPE, the image of the Manchester Arena is preferable to that of the Iranian President, as there is otherwise an implication that Iran is in some way involved in the bombing, which it is not. Agree that image quality is poorer, but there is an overriding reason to have the arena image. Mjroots (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mjroots, thanks for the ping, and apologies, yes I already realised that and reverted, I hadn't looked at ERRORS. It would have been helpful if someone had put a note to that effect at WP:ITN/C, since the "consensus" there (albeit with only TRM's comment) seemed to be that we don't usually post exterior shots. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
No problem, it's awkward when TRM says one thing in one place, and the complete opposite somewhere else. Anyway, I've added a hidden note to T:ITN re the use of the arena image. That should cover the situation until such time as a new story and image comes along. Mjroots (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Vijayawada Airport

Talk:Vijayawada Airport the discussion was closed. But I want a review for international naming. Though the name in the requested cannot be placed now, it was upgraded recently to international status, so atleast need review for international word in the name.

Ref:ref1, ref2.

--Vin09 (talk) 04:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Hi @Vin09: thanks for your message. I gathered that the airport has gained "international status", but I didn't see a lot of evidence that the name has actually changed. The article you cite above still calls it "Vijayawada Airport", but notes that it is now an international airport. That's not the same as saying that the WP:COMMONNAME has changed to "Vijayawada International Airport". Per WP:NAMECHANGES, you would have to show that the majority of reliable sources now use the new name. I think the best thing would be to start a new move request specifically to that title (that way we don't get muddled with opposes for the much longer name). Since you've requested this from me, I'll start it for you, although note that I neither support nor oppose the suggestion. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 07:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you.--Vin09 (talk) 07:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

UK station move discussion

FYI, I've started a discussion on UK station disambiguation here. Your input would be valuable.--Cúchullain t/c 17:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2017

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

Administrator changes

added Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn
removed ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

RFAR withdrawn

The request for arbitration in which you were involved has been withdrawn by the filing party. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 20:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

the article "Maryann Keller" Testingblog (talk) 05:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Dear Amakuru, I will very much appreciate that you help address the issues raised by the warning tag in the article "Maryann Keller" here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryann_Keller . I appreciate very much your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Testingblog (talk • contribs) 04:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 June 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The various "Heartland" series...

Amakuru, ah, I missed that Heartland (Canadian TV series) also premiered in 2007. So, Heartland (2007 U.S. TV series) does require "double disambiguation" (whereas Heartland (1989 TV series) does not). Thanks for catching that.

However, this means that the Canadian TV also requires "double disambiguation" – IOW, Heartland (Canadian TV series) needs to be moved to Heartland (2007 Canadian TV series) (see, other examples where this has been necessary) to fully disambiguate from the 2007 U.S. TV series. (The redirect can stay at Heartland (Canadian TV series) in this case.) Should I launch a WP:RM about this? Or should it just be "moved"? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: no worries - in fact you yourself voted and supported he original RM at Talk:Heartland (2007 U.S. TV series), so I was quite surprised to see you taking a different line now! The original RM called for the 1989 series to be moved too, but I didn't see why that should be, as it is unambiguous, hence why I didn't revert that one.
On the Canadian series, I'm wondering why you think that should be moved? Similar to the 1989 series, the Canadian one is the only one satisfying that attribute, hence is already as precise as it needs to be. The only oddity is that now we have two different types of disambiguation for the same title and topic, I'm not sure if there's a rule against that?  — Amakuru (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
The "trend" at WT:TV/WT:NCTV seems to be towards more disambiguation over less – see this discussion for example. I think, basically, the idea is if you created a redirect at Heartland (2007 TV series), to which of the two series would it point? And the answer is, it can't point towards either, so you need Heartland (2007 U.S. TV series) and Heartland (2007 Canadian TV series) to both exist. At the least, a redirect should be created at Heartland (2007 Canadian TV series) – in this case, we may be able to get away with just doing that... (P.S. It was also my bad for not checking the Talk page: sometimes I forget to do that – if I had, I would have seen the RM discussion (that I voted in!). But the 1989 series does not need double-disambiguation (something I hadn't thought much about in 2016) – just the redirect at "1989 U.S. TV series" should be sufficient...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
@IJBall: the point is, I think, that Heartland (2007 TV series) is an ambiguous title, hence we know it can't point to either of the more specific articles, and redirects to the main dab page, which lists all options. Similarly for Heartland (U.S. TV series). For the Canadian one, though, that is a unique identifier, just as 1989 is:
US Canadian Australian
1989 checkY
1994 checkY
2007 checkY checkY
Canadian, Australian and 1989 (and indeed 1994) are all unique identifiers, whereas US and 2007 are not unique.
If you feel that we have to provide the full disambiguation for the Canadian series, then logically woudn't we would also have to provide full disambiguation for the 1989 series? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
The "full disambigation" for that one already exists: Heartland (1989 U.S. TV series) exists as a redirect. But it is not necessary for the article to reside there: there is only one 1989 TV series, so "1989 TV series" is sufficient disambiguation there. Basically, this falls under either WP:PRECISE or WP:CONCISE... As to the Canadian series... I dunno, maybe you're right that just using the country is sufficient disambig. (though, as I said, that "2007 Canadian TV series" redirect does need to be created)... If that's the case, I may need to think about moving Deception (2013 Irish TV series) back to Deception (Irish TV series) (while still leaving a redirect at the former...). Let me know what you think. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
P.S. Your table above is useful – so I am going to "steal" it for my own (nefarious!!) purposes at my double disambiguation log page. Creating tables like that should help (me) a lot when figuring out when "double disambiguation" is necessary or not... Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Israeli apartheid allegations

Hi, You made a mistake at Israeli apartheid allegations. As several people pointed out, the meaning of that phrase is "apartheid allegations made by Israel", whereas the subject of the article is "apartheid allegations made about Israel". Nearly all the people who suggested that title do not have English as their first language. The new title is simply wrong and can't be sustained. Please correct this error. Zerotalk 12:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Need assistance with something...

Hi, Amakuru – as one of the "move expert" Admins, I thought I'd bring this to you. I just discovered Talk:Migo Adecer – it looks like it was an attempt to move an article from WP:Draftspace to WP:Mainspace. However, it looks like Migo Adecer is creation-protected. I'm not sure what the next step is here, as at first glance the article Talk:Migo Adecer appear to be viable (but there's obviously "history" involving this article subject)... In any case, probably better to have an Admin look into this further. Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: it looks like the page was creation protected as a result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Sagra. I think you're probably right that this is more viable than any of the other contestants mentioned in that discussion. Adecer apparently won the show, and the sources and a search suggest that he's now notable for more than just appearing on that series. I'll move the talk page draft to be the main article now, and people can start a fresh AfD for it if they feel there's still grounds to keep it deleted. Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 10:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Varadkar

Hi Amakuru. Talkpages of disambiguation and set-index pages are usually deleted once a primary topic is declared (examples include Talk:Gladstone and Talk:Van Buren), I would assume, so wouldn't it make sense to delete Talk:Varadkar as well? I doubt somebody would prefer to start a discussion there, rather than at Talk:Leo Varadkar. IMHO it should stay deleted.--Nevé–selbert 18:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Talk:Varadkar

Talk:Varadkar, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Varadkar and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Varadkar during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. --Nevé–selbert 19:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I've contributed to the discussion.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 June 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Albanian Civil War

Well, that closure has WP:SUPERVOTE written all over it. When the arguments for support are "the name is too long" and "I want to close the discussion" versus an actual oppose, at most that would lead to a "no consensus". I don't mind you disagreeing with my !vote, but that needs to be left as a separate !vote, not as a closing rationale. Perhaps then we can discuss the merits of both opinions versus what I feel is an improper closure. -- Tavix (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tavix: I read "the name is too long" as referring to WP:CONCISE. This applies since Albanian Civil War already redirected to Albanian civil war of 1997. I wasn't dismissing your argument that perhaps the WW2 event should have it's own article, and perhaps it should be considered equal in standing to this one, but this RM was not about that. It was merely about maintaining the current primary topic setup, but moving the article title to the more concise form. If you want to propose a change of primary topic, then I suggest you start a specific RM to propose that. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Better yet, I've started a move review. Again, none of those points were made in the discussion. If you have that opinion, that's more than fine to leave a !vote and we can discuss it. But closing it like that is a WP:SUPERVOTE, and I'm disappointed you don't see it that way. -- Tavix (talk) 13:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
@Tavix: Reading consensus and interpreting people's comments is not a supervote, and I'm not sure why you feel the need for a move review in this instance. Like I say, if you want to change the primary topic, just go ahead and propose a new RM, that will be far better way forward than a move review. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
No, I don't think the page should have been moved at all, it's not a question of primary topic. The way to reverse what I feel is an inappropriate closure is via WP:MR, not opening a new RM just to get the page back to where it was. -- Tavix (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Move review for Albanian Civil War

An editor has asked for a Move review of Albanian Civil War. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. -- Tavix (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion for Danish Frogmen Corps

Hi Amakuru, Please recheck your closing of the discussion. I interpret the consensus as being for Frogman Corps (Denmark), following the MILMOS, not for Frogman Corps, and for Frogman Corps to be a redirect to List of military diving units. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Pbsouthwood: thanks for the note. It seems my RM closes yesterday were causing some controversy (see section above) . Anyway, many of the !votes supported the nominator's proposal of a move to Frogman Corps, and the rationale seemed sound to me, but I've looked again and you're right that it was not a clear cut consensus between that and the (Denmark) version. I've therefore reversed the close, relisted the discussion and added a "support" vote for the original proposal instead. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
No worries. It is all reversible. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Precious five years!

Precious
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: yay, thank you! Has it been five years already? Thanks again for the awesome work you do with these awards, it certainly feels amazing to be recognised like this, and to have my own day .  — Amakuru (talk) 09:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations on Rwandan Civil War GA!

Hi Steve, so sorry to keep you waiting this long to complete the GA review. Fantastic work as always - I'm very glad to pass it at last. Thank you for your continued dedication to WP and to bringing quality info about Rwanda to the masses. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 13:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@Lemurbaby: thanks a lot! Now just need to find something else to work on... alongside promoting that and the Revolution article to FA, of course. Hope all's well with you. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 08:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rwandan Civil War

The article Rwandan Civil War you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Rwandan Civil War for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lemurbaby -- Lemurbaby (talk) 13:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Regent Street

I want to take this offline from RfA as it's not really relevant, but I think you've misunderstood.

I can't speak directly for Anarchyte, but when the IP re-added the unsourced claim, I simply didn't believe them. London streets have been established for hundreds of years and are an essential part of navigation for the millions of tourists that visit the capital each year, so for Westminster CC to formally propose a renaming of one of the most prominent shopping streets in the West End seems an illogical waste of money. (I realise now the IP actually agreed with this sentiment on the talk page). Furthermore, the rename was carried out in 2014 and documented online in the council archives, so any editor could have added a source for this in the past three years - yet nobody did.

So, to summarise, I think there were extenuating circumstances regarding this, and to twist it into some sort of violation of WP:AGF / WP:BITE is a little wide of the mark, in my view.

I might seem like I'm ranting a little unncessarily, but to me the factual accuracy and integrity of a Good Article is more important than a Request for Adminship, and people should be focusing their attention on what's good for the article, not using minor errors to whack each other over the head with! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: ah OK, thanks for that explanation, that makes some sense. I probably didn't question whether anyone would believe this partly because I saw the street name there myself a few weeks ago, and did a kind of double-take - I had no recollection of a road of that name, but didn't recall that it had been Lower Regent Street either. I agree that it can be hard sometimes to partition IP edits into their proper buckets (patent nonsense / good faith but inaccurate / correct but unsourced), and I've probably made similar mistakes myself in the past so Anarchyte if you're reading this please just take my comments as friendly chat rather than any sort of admonishment! Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • (ec) I was quite amazed to see that half of Nash's Park Crescent had been demolished when I drove past the other day. That also involves the Crown Estate who presumably have much influence in such matters. I suppose that some sort of reconstruction is planned but our article doesn't say anything about it. In my borough of Ealing, the landmark cinema in the centre has been tied up in planning wrangles for years and only the facade is left. And then there's Grenfell Tower -- I got some photos of the stump when going past that recently too. So, it seems easy to believe that some new horror has occurred in the Great Wen. Anyway, so far as our project is concerned, the worst outcome from this RFA has been the way that Tonton Bernardo has been given the bum's rush after daring to speak his mind. He seems to have been quite a productive editor and now he has been both bitten and spat out. Tsk. Andrew D. (talk) 13:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Hang on, isn't Park Crescent a bunch of Grade I listed buildings? Don't get me started on listed buildings - they might sound like a nice idea for English Heritage, but they're a pain in a neck if you own them, as the cost of basic building repairs skyrockets since you're only allowed to do them in a certain manner. This is why old listed pubs actually get increasingly derelict and burn down by some "mysterious" arsonist, as it's the only cost effective way to fix them - by far and away the best example I can think of is the West Pier.
In the specific case of Regent Street, I thought the IP's edit was good-faith but it immediately bought to mind pub gossip "hey, have you heard the council's going to do this, that the other?" and if it was true, it would fall out of the woodwork in due course. As it now has.
And as for Tonton Bernardo, I think it was more a case of ineffective communication, probably from English not being a first language. However, you do not go around calling other Wikipedians Nazis - ever. We're a reasonably good primer for military and political history, especially for WWII and related events, and if people on the project spent more time reading the articles and less time using pertinent topics as insults, we'd all be in a better place and people would be better informed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2017

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

Administrator changes

added Happyme22 • Dragons flight
removed Zad68

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

  • A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
  • A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
  • Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Revdel needed

Thanks for deleting that youngster's userpage a few minutes ago. The same personal details are included in previous versions of his talk page which ought to be revdel-eted. Hope that's enough info without pointing it out to all and sundry. Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 12:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Cabayi: good call. I've done that. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Odd reversion

This was unexpected. - Dank (push to talk) 17:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

yes, apologies for that. It was an accident. Clicked the rollback button by mistake. I've reverted back to the proper version.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Only reason I asked was, there was a big argument yesterday, and I didn't know if that was your way of taking a position :) Not a problem. - Dank (push to talk) 18:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
@Dank: he he, that would be definitely not a very civil way to take a position! I hadn't even seen that argument, so no positions from me there... Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 July 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amakuru/Archive_9&oldid=1144384773"