Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --TedEdwards 20:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sceptre,

Thanks for taking the time to assess the RM of 90377 Sedna. Please don't forget to move back Quaoar. Renerpho (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sceptre, Please could you reopen and relist the RM? There wasn't that much participation, !votes were pretty split and I think there was a lot more to be discussed about the matter, warranting a relist. I would certainly vote in favour of the move, as the WP:COMMONNAME in sources is not "90377 Sedna" as far as I can see.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: FWIW, there's a larger discussion over whether Sedna is definitively a dwarf planet or not going on at the talk page, and I didn't want to tip the scales one way or the other with the closure. The predominant view in the RM was against moving, so I could've closed it as "not moved", but "no consensus to change how we've done stuff, therefore we stick with the status quo ante" is also a valid closure, and FWIW, I don't think another few days of discussion would've created a consensus. Sceptre (talk) 07:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter Hello and welcome to our latest newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since October. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. Blitz: Our October Copy Editing Blitz focused on July and August 2022 request months; and articles tagged for c/e in December 2021 and January 2022. Seventeen of those who signed up claimed at least one copy-edit, and between them copy-edited forty-six articles. Barnstars awarded are here. Drive: In the November Backlog Elimination Drive, thirty editors signed up, twenty-two of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Both target months—December 2021 and January 2022—were cleared, and February was added to the target months. Sixteen requests were copy-edited and 239 articles were removed from the backlog. Barnstars awarded are here. Blitz: Our seven-day-long December 2022 Copy Editing Blitz begins on 17 December at 00:01 (UTC)*. It will focus on articles tagged for copy-edit in February 2022, and pending requests from September and October. Barnstars awarded will be available here. Progress report: As of 22:40, 8 December 2022, GOCE copyeditors have processed 357 requests since 1 January, there were seventy-four requests outstanding and the backlog stands at 1,791 articles. We always need skilled copy-editors; please help out if you can. Election news: Nomination of candidates for the GOCE's Election of Coordinators for the first half of 2023 is open and continues until 23:59 on 15 December. Voting begins at 00:01 on 16 December and closes at 23:59 on 31 December. All editors in good standing (not under ArbCom or community sanctions) are eligible and self-nominations are welcomed. Coordinators serve a six-month term that ends at 23:59 on June 30. If you've thought about helping out at the Guild, please nominate yourself or any editor you consider suitable—with their permission, of course!. It's your Guild and it doesn't coordinate itself. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers and best seasonal wishes from your GOCE coordinators, Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, Tenryuu, and Zippybonzo. *All times and dates on this newsletter are UTC. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The GOCE December 2022 newsletter, as sent on 9 December, contains an erroneous start date for our December Blitz. The Blitz will start on 11 December rather than on 17 December, as stated in the newsletter. I'm sorry for the mistake and for disrupting your talk page; thanks for your understanding. Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I must take issue with the recent close. It states:

the closer stated the discussion and arguments were fairly balanced when what the closer actually said was

While the discussion and arguments seem fairly balanced in number.....my decision that those who support the move have a better understanding of the article and what its title should be

Furthermore, the review closure also stated

Please do note that the community takes issue with UtherSRG's method, not his outcome. It will be in order for someone else to re-close this requested move as move if that is their assessment of the consensus

Afaics, the current close amounts to a vote count that takes no account of the quality of the arguments in support of either the original or the proposed title, the "better understanding", I request that you take another look.

Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 11:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier: At the same time, I cannot create a consensus where there clearly is none. Nothing happened in the RM after it was re-opened. At the MRV, overturning to no consensus was supported by a good proportion of people, and I agree with them. Sceptre (talk) 14:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Selfstudier, Sceptre, because far too many editors agreed that the first closure, which did find a consensus to move, was correct. You say you did not see a consensus, but you don't say why? The support args far outweighed the oppose args, which is the main reason the first closure's review ended in "vacate" rather than in "overturn to no consensus". Please reassess the arguments to find what we say here is true. That article needs to be renamed as proposed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 06:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agreed. I noted at the MRV that there was consensus to close, just that the previous closer gave a spurious reason for seeing consensus there. Closure is supposed to be viewed through the lens of policy, not by counting heads, and in this case there was strong evidence by those in support, invoking the WP:NPOV policy, that the term "expulsion and flight" is better and more neutral wording than the status quo. I wish I'd cast another "support" !vote at the discussion now, because the arguments to move were vastly more persuasive and rooted in evidence than those in opposition, and I didn't really expect a no-consensus closure after all that had been said at the MRV, it was simply that a more clear close was required than that previously given. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your close doesnt seem to address the merits of the arguments at all, and ask that you reconsider by either relisting (it had only been relisted for three days prior to your close) or address the merits of the arguments. When one group provides sources and the other side just says POV that should not result in no consensus. nableezy - 14:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see this has already been requested, if you are going to refuse can you say so in order to open a new move review? nableezy - 14:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Paine Ellsworth, Amakuru, and Nableezy: Hey all. Having a second look at the RM, although the arguments to move were more detailed than those opposing the move, I still cannot create a consensus where there is none. I'm sympathetic to the argument, and personally I believe the people arguing in favour of a move are right. But as a closer, my role is to evaluate the discussion, and I cannot see a consensus either way. Nor was it likely that a consensus was going to develop; there was no participation in the RM after it was reopened. In such circumstances, I can't do anything but close as "no consensus". Sceptre (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can, you can not close a move that was relisted for 3 days, especially when experienced closers and admins are telling you that you are incorrect in your reading of the discussion and of "consensus". But fine, Ill open a move review. nableezy - 17:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a Move review of 1948 Palestinian exodus. 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. nableezy - 17:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I request that you reopen and relist your recent closure of this RM. To close this RM based on counting !votes is inappropriate. Consensus is not based on just counting the number of heads.

In addition, in my opinion your closing statement does not address the arguments raised during the RM. Did you consider WP:CRITERIA-based arguments? Did you consider that the party does not use one name over the other on it's website, when at least three support !votes stated that they do? -Spekkios (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Spekkios: I did consider WP:CRITERIA, and found arguments for "Māori Party" and "Te Pāti Maori" to be relatively equal in weight. At such a point, I have to fall back on the direction of the discussion, which was clearly in favour of the move. Sceptre (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the arguments are relatively equal in weight, that would imply a "no consensus" closure instead of a "move" closure. How does the discussion "direction" or the number of !votes matter if the policy based arguments are equal in weight? --Spekkios (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

==Move review for Te Pāti Māori==

An editor has asked for a Move review of Te Pāti Māori. 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. Spekkios (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, um, slightly awkward to pile on like this, but I don’t actually have any issue with the decision of your closure. Rather I came to advise on a less central detail: you should avoid introducing new arguments in your closures. In this case, the point about NZ English being quick to adopt Māori vocab seems to come out of nowhere and doesn’t reflect the discussion. I think a better summary would have mentioned something like “proponents emphasised that the party refers to itself as te Pāti Māori (in English)”, which seems to be one of two dominant arguments (along with commonness). — HTGS (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HTGS: In hindsight, you're right about the wording. I didn't think the comment came out of nowhere; there is a propensity in NZ-related RMs for people less familiar with NZEng to treat Māori vocabulary as "not English enough", which I felt was being introduced in this RM. But yes, the key point is that the use in English, not the use of English (see also also: Senedd), for which I was satisfied "Te Pāti Māori" was common enough to be a COMMONNAME. Sceptre (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't notice any objection to moving that to Day of Reckoning (disambiguation). I think that could have been the outcome, rather than "no consensus". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see you recently closed a requested move as no consensus. I agree there wasn't any consensus. Should this mean that the article should revert back to its previous long-term and stable title? the article was called "Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan" from 2008 to May 2022, when it was moved after this discussion. But this discussion doesn't seem to have enough participation to constitute consensus (2 supports and 1 oppose). This rationale was also mentioned by Paine Ellsworth. VR _talk 16:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, move requests don't need to have a certain magnitude of participation for them to be regarded as legitimate (vide WP:RMNOMIN), as decisions are made by a consensus process, which factors in the policy-based reasoning of participants, and not vote-counting; and an absence of objection does contribute to the consensus too. As someone who participated in the discussion, I find the above bid to solicit a move indirectly without notifying the editors on the talk page to be quite discourteous inasmuch as the magnitude to which it was vehemently opposed (being eloquent of disagreement) by a laundry list of long-term contributors (including Andrewa and Amakuru), who argued against the move on policy grounds, in contrast to the support it garnered from a considerable number of SPAs, block-evading socks, and topic banned users who trivialized the consensus process by construing the discussion to be some sort of a votestacking contest; not to mention the fact that the title had been stable for about half a year until a block-evading IP began, and thereupon tainted the RM with more socks. In my view, the foregoing quite clearly forecloses the possibility of a revert back to old title. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To editors VR and MBlaze Lightning: might have handled this differently; however, the outcome in this case is a reasonable one. And this due to ML's argument above for a set new consensus being in place long enough to matter. And I trust Andrewa's and Amakuru's opinions beyond words. So in the end there's a good possibility I would have closed the same way Sceptre did. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 23:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - it has been clearly demonstrated above, using Google hits as well as G-books hits, that the common name for this group is "Pakistani Taliban". It's also clearly the primary topic for that term, compared to the topic of other Taliban who hail from Pakistan or other groups operating there. Although the !vote here looks split, I think this is a "consensus against move" scenario because the policy arguments for the present title are a lot stronger than those for the alternative
— User:Amakuru 12:00, 28 November 2022

Yes, thanks @MBlaze Lightning: for this thoughtful response, and that would be my viewpoint as well. There are two separate issues here, firstly whether the May RM was sufficient to establish a "new status quo" to be the baseline default in the event of a subsequent "no consensus", and secondly whether the close of no consensus was itself valid. On the first, I'd say it's borderline; if the RM was very recent, I'd probably include its findings in and amongst the !votes for the second RM; but 6+ months, for an RM which was conclusively decided (i.e. not just moved without discussion) is getting to the point where it should be binding. So (with my obviously biased hat on) I wouldn't fault Sceptre for not moving back to the original name. On the second issue, I agree that it definitely should have been a "consensus against moving" close, when evaluating through the strength of argument, WP policy and evidence. Furthermore, in a contentious and close RM such as this, I would expect a summary from the closer as to why they've come to the conclusion they have... not just a single-line "no consensus"... as indeed was the case at the Talk:1948_Palestinian_exodus#Requested_move_8_September_2022 RM mentioned in the sections above and now at move review. WP:CONSENSUS is formed by viewing !votes through the lens of policy, and both supporters and opposers need to know why a closer reached the conclusion they did. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:51, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MBlaze Lightning: this is a rehash of the argument in made during the RM, but you are confusing two different topics here. Just because a title has a WP:PRIMARY TOPIC doesn't mean that that topic unambiguously refers to only that primary topic. A great example is given in policy itself[2], at WP:COMMONNAME, and that is Heart attack. The Primary topic of Heart attack, and the page it redirects to, is Myocardial Infarction. However, heart attack can also refer to cardiac arrest. VR _talk 19:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vice regent, yeah, thanks for recollecting that you conceded to Amakuru on their primary topic contention in the discussion ([3]). This consensus then should have informed Sceptre's close, for the policy left no room for doubt that the title had to reflect the primary topic (as discerned by common usage in English RS). The guidline is perspicuous: if an expression has a primary topic, then that is what it leads to, per its dictates. This is not to say that its application is ubiquitous: as with any other MOS, exceptions do exist; and medicine domain embodies the niche where the nomenclature is conditioned by the scientific or recognised medical name commonly occuring in "recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, rather than a lay term (unscientific or slang name)[1] or an historical eponym that has been superseded" (vide WP:NCMED). This is why the colloquial term, Heart attack, redirects to MI, despite being the primary topic. However, such exceptions do not impeach the rule itself; the latter is the established norm; whereas the former, a narrowly carved out exception to suffice the specific needs of a niche community. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I think you're mistaken about Primarytopic. You seem to implying that if a title X has a primary topic Y, then our article on Y must necessarily be called X. But that's not true. The only thing the primary topic implies is that X must point to the article Y, whatever it is called. In fact, we have a whole template (Template:Redirect) that deals with such cases. Besides the "heart attack" example above, other examples include:

• The primary topic for "Soccer" is Association football. And "soccer" has 647M google hits, vs only 10M hits for "Association Football", yet we pick the less common name.
• The primary topic for "Western Allies" (2.3M hits) is Allies of World War II (0.2M hits), but we avoid the title that is ambiguous.
• The primary topic for "Midwest" (171M hits) is Midwestern United States (only 1.2M hits), but again we avoid the ambiguous title. I could go on and on with dozens more examples.
• The primary topic for "Pakistani Taliban" is indeed "Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan". In this case too, we should avoided the ambiguous name even if it gave somewhat more google hits.

Likewise many times during the discussion I argued that "Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan" was more precise, because scholarly sources used the term "Pakistani Taliban" to refer to groups/individuals that were not TTP ([4][5][6]), for example splinter groups from TTP, groups similar to the TTP but never a part of it, as well as Pakistani members of the (Afghan) Taliban. VR _talk 00:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merely rehashing that some expression is ambiguous doesn't cut it for an argument where you have acknowledged that there is a primary topic. Matters end right there for all intents and purposes. The redirects embody an exception scenario to the aforesaid guideline, and they occur when any of the conditions set forth in WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT hold good, which wasn't remotely the case with this article; indeed, it was no one's argument, forget an effort that convinced others. The results were lopsided and weighed in favour of the existing title. Your filibustering to derail the efforts to solicit Sceptre's construction of a "no consensus" (which didn't account for the strong policy and evidence based reasoning in oppose) is getting to the point of being unconstructive; this isn't a new RM, where you rehash and even dwell on the issue anew with previously unmentioned examples; desist, please. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 06:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix the many incoming links to this dab page, which previously pointed to the page now at "(building)". Thanks. PamD 05:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --TedEdwards 03:16, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Hello!

I was curious to know why you closed the recent RM on Franz Willem Prinz von Preussen in favor of the move? The majority (albeit 7-6, by my count) were opposed to the move. Further, the official website of the princes of Prussia [8] refers to "Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia" not the current article title. I would suggest revisiting this RM, as it does not even seem reliable english sources use the title. I would also argue the discouragement of hypothetical titles in WP:NCROY doesn't apply because reliable sources do in fact use the title. Here are some: [9] [10] [11][12] Estar8806 (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Partners in Crime (Doctor Who) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Sceptre!

I had never proposed mergers until recently, and most of my proposals haven't been gaining much traction. I would appreciate your insight on these 3 proposals of mine: 1, 2, 3

Any insight is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time! Mooonswimmer 21:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mooonswimmer: If nobody objects to the proposal after a decent amount of time, just feel free to do the merge yourself. :) Sceptre (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you close this when you were involved with a previous near-identical close that was challenged and which came up with no consensus on the quality of your close? Part of the complaint was that you did a vote count and didn't expand on the arguments or policy. Now you have closed an almost identical RM (with yourself now arguably involved in the overall imbroglio) and performed what appears to be another vote count without any mention of the arguments or policy, and in part referred to the previous close with which you were involved. In the most unflattering light, this close could even be interpreted as you returning with the specific intent of reiterating your own previous, challenged verdict to make a point. I would strongly suggest that you re-open and leave it to a closer that is more obviously uninvolved. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:04, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INVOLVED explicitly does not apply to actions taken in a purely administrative role. As I've said, if there was truly a consensus to move the article, I would be perfectly happy to do so. But if anything about the past six months of discussion over three extended RM periods and two MRV periods has shown, it's not only that there isn't a consensus, but also that there won't be a consensus forthcoming. If you disagree, you can go for a third move review of this RM, but honestly, I think we'd all be better off if we let the matter rest for a while. Sceptre (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the letter of the law, your involvement at this stage was unwise to the say the least given your past involvement in a similar case and the subsequent contention. In addition, the combined lack of policy/argument reflection and similarly off-topic reflections on past closes used to justify the close (again) was of course almost guaranteed to raise recurring questions. If you don't have the energy to engage fully with a subject of this nature, don't engage with it. The handling of contentious topic discussions is often best left to administrators. I think you closing this almost guarantees another move review, but if that is an outcome you are happy with, so be it. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is an absurd close, and you emphatically do not have authority to impose a moratorium. nableezy - 16:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2023_February#1948_Palestinian_exodus nableezy - 17:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for undoing my edits. Yes, at the article Royal Rumble (2023), WWE officially lists Rhea Ripley as staying in the women's Royal Rumble match 1 second longer than Liv Morgan, although other sources say that the match ended as soon as Morgan was eliminated, and Ripley and Morgan set the record. If you have further issues, please discuss it in the article's talk page. GodofDemonwars (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors 2022 Annual Report Our 2022 Annual Report is now ready for review. Highlights: Overview of Backlog-reduction progress Summary of Drives, Blitzes, and the Requests page Membership news and results of elections Closing words – Your Guild coordinators: Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

How did you determine that the consensus for this move was not the proposed title? Spekkios (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Spekkios:: HTGS's argument was the most persuasive, both to me and other editors in the discussion. When it comes to NZEng, there's no bright line to go to for the English, Māori, or dual names and it ultimately comes down to which has the most evidence to go with. In this case, based mostly on HTGS's comment, I determined it was the Māori one. Sceptre (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How are you determining that the argument presented by HTGS was persuasive to other editors? Unless I am mistaken, no other editors are referencing their argument. --Spekkios (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since you haven't clarified further, please see here. --Spekkios (talk) 08:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the close at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ukraine#Requested move 7 February 2023. The statement about the decision completely ignores the important point about the difference between the names in article titles and parenthetic disambiguation strings, as well as the cited precedent, citing examples that are not analogies for this at all (on top of that, Istanbul and Constantinople are completely different names, not just a spelling variation in a city name that hasn’t changed in over a millennium). It seems a completely unsatisfactory rationale, as in it gives no indication that you read the proposal or considered the points made in it.source] ]]  —Michael Z. 20:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mzajac: although Constantinople may arguably be or not be an adequate comparison, I believe that Calcutta/Kolkata is; they’re both changes in (Western) English orthography to the local orthography, where the local orthography is more common. However, it’s not always the case that the change is consistent when talking retrospectively; although "Mumbai" is almost universally used these days, usage is split on the 1993 Bombay bombings. Regardless, there isn’t a consensus for a move anyway, and the retrospectivity (or lack thereof) of COMMONNAME was brought up in the discussion. Sceptre (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That’s all academic because the change was to the parenthetic disambiguation text, not the name. COMMONNAME doesn’t apply to disambiguation text.

WP:PRECISION says to use the least-precise version sufficient to disambiguate. The main-article-title spelling of the city is good enough, and there’s no point in narrowing it to a historical spelling that is only used in restricted contexts.

WP:TITLEDAB reinforces the idea: “use only as much additional detail as necessary.” The examples there make it clear to use the broadest term possible, not one that applies only in a specific context, like a historical one.

And WP:CONSISTENCY is violated, because the new decision conflicts with the precedent cited in the proposal: the consensus move of a similar article to Folkstsaytung (Kyiv).

And there is no consensus to use the dated spelling Kharkov in historical contexts.

It’s not the end of the world if these are not moved, but it seems to be contrary to best practices. I urge you to reconsider the decision or even reopen it to get more input, but I’ve had my say and I won’t belabour it further if you choose not to. Thanks for closing the RM anyway. Cheers. —Michael Z. 04:09, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to read that novel. I'd just like to know what arguments you found most compelling, so I can understand more about Wikipedia guidelines.

Your reasoning on the talk page itself is that the common name may change from Maize to Corn, but it hasn't yet, similar to Iroquois → Haudenosaunee. However, the arguments used to show that Iroquois is still the most commonly used name is the exact sort used to show why Corn is the most commonly used name. Most relevantly, even in scientific and scholarly papers Maize is used about 1/3rd as much as Corn, as shown in the RM.

Could you explain the differences between the two situations? Without knowing more about your point of view, one could look at these two examples and assume that the default is 'no consensus' when a tough decision needs to be made. OuroCat (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. This is a standard message to inform you that the Arab–Israeli conflict is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Additionally editors must be logged-in have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert on the same page within 24 hours for pages within this topic. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. nableezy - 13:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sceptre. Regarding your closure at Aguascalientes City, I notice you wrote that "documentary evidence has been provided to the contrary" only for Chihuahua City, which you exempted... but an even greater volume of documentary evidence was provided for Oaxaca City, which you didn't. Was that intentional, and if so could you share the rationale? Thanks for any clarification. ╠╣uw [talk] 17:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that a lot of evidence was introduced for Queretaro City, as well. Red Slash 17:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Huwmanbeing and Red Slash:: It was completely unintentional, but from looking further at the discussion, I can see there's no reason to not apply that exemption for Oaxaca and Querétaro. I'll happily reverse those moves and amend my closure in those cases. Sceptre (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Chihuahua City, Oaxaca City, and Querétaro City were the only ones actually tested for evidence of common usage; that they all showed it suggests the others are likely the same. I feel like it would've been preferable for the nominator to investigate this before making the bulk proposal, but it sounds like individual RMs or a second bulk RM will be needed for these now. ╠╣uw [talk] 19:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I didn't test all the other ones, because it would have been exhausting, but I think you probably would've found the same for all the others (possible exceptions might include Colima, which is--slight exaggeration--basically a microstate, or maybe some extremely small cities/states like Aguascalientes itself that don't have much of any English-language coverage at all, but no evidence was offered in the move request whatsoever). Thanks for putting the accent in Querétaro City, btw--my bad for being lazing and omitting it. Red Slash 17:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RS: Yes, I think it just comes down to the original bulk request being poorly formed, in that it wrongly assumed that none of the listed cities commonly use the "City" form, whereas spot checks showed that wasn't true for several (and suggested it might not be true for any). I think ideally those that haven't been checked wouldn't be moved until they have, but it's not the end of the world either way and I'm fine with whatever solution's easiest. Recommendations, Scepter? ╠╣uw [talk] 18:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sceptre, I must applaud you for your efforts. But I think there’s a bit of confusion lurking here. There is no community consensus, nor local consensus in this RM, that says that demonstration of some common usage of a given natural disambiguation for a topic means that this natural disambiguation, and not parenthetic disambiguation of the undisputed most common name, must be used as the title. As noted in the discussion, NATURAL merely notes that the natural disambiguation may be preferred. Well, in all of these cases, without any exceptions, consensus in this RM clearly prefers the parenthetic disambiguation. Please close according to community and local consensus. Thank you. —В²C ☎ 02:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sceptre, hello? Would you prefer to address this in an MR? —В²C ☎ 06:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough, I was considering a move review as well, since no evidence was provided for the vast majority of the cities that the X City name was not common; I provided several counterexamples for Chihuahua and Queretaro specifically (and I believe Huw did the same for Oaxaca), and I think I provided enough evidence to show that if those two or three were off, than everything was off.

Frankly, I think the move request should've been dropped as no consensus, and then people individually could've made proposals at each one to look at how much English-language usage the X City form had for each one individually. Most likely Chihuahua would've failed (stayed at City); perhaps Aguascalientes itself would've succeeded; in any case, I was thinking of a move review. (Also, B2C, I have so much respect for you, even ywith this disagreement, but like... you gave Spectre 28 hours to respond, give her a bit more time ) Red Slash 17:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, even if evidence of common usage of Name City was shown for every city on the list that wouldn’t be sufficient to override the consensus to move them all to parenthetic disambiguation, as proposed, nonetheless. While lack of common usage is sufficient reason to not use a given alternative name, evidence of common usage is not sufficient to use it rather than parenthetic disambiguation. There are other considerations to be made and ultimately it’s decided by consensus, not the closer. The closer is only supposed to decide what the consensus is. Otherwise it’s a WP:SUPERVOTE. Here, the closer’s unilateral decision to exclude first 1, then 2 then 3, from the list, when consensus for/against the move of each was equal for all, is a super vote. —-В²C ☎ 18:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre as it may seem, I'd say exactly the opposite. Got lots of respect for you, B2C, but to me, saying "yeah the amount of supports for Durango City vis-a-vis Chihuahua City were the same, but Chihuahua City had actual evidence presented and Durango didn't, so I'm going to treat them differently" sounds like something a good closer would do.

But of course that ignores the more important point that there was no evidence provided whatsoever that Durango City isn't a common name for the city. Which is why we're going to go to Move Review. Red Slash 17:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Born2cycle and Huwmanbeing:: I think this is a problem with these multi-page RMs; indeed, I went into the closing process hoping that I wouldn't have to move the pages. But as it was, the RM was balancing on the scales of "move" vs "no consensus"; the consistency argument isn't as strong given the examples of other cities (in Mexico, Japan, and of course, Cork). I also agree that "X City" would be a decent enough NATURAL disambiguation, were it not for the "don't use natural disambiguations that are obscure" part of WP:NATURAL"; except for the three cases I exempted, I didn't see anything in the RM that adequately rebutted that argument. With all that said, I don't oppose starting new singular RMs if the evidence for "X City" can be shown for the other cities in the list. Sceptre (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you don’t see anything in the RM that adequately rebutted that, it’s because you’re ignoring my rebuttal (in the last comment in the RM discussion) which points out that the "don't use natural disambiguations that are obscure" part of WP:NATURAL simply points out an extreme limit to where natural disambiguations are not to be used. It’s quite a leap not supported by local or community consensus to interpret that to mean, “if the natural disambiguation in question is not obscure then it must be used.” Yet you are inexplicably interpreting it to mean that. The key question here is not about whether the natural disambiguation may be used. I mean, in those cases where it’s obscure it may not be used, of course. But in any case where it’s (at least arguably) not obscure that just means it may be used, not that it must be. So, in those cases where the natural disambiguation is not obscure the key question is which disambiguation form is preferred. And, again, consensus was the same for every city in the list: parenthetic disambiguation is preferred to Name City disambiguation in each of these cases. Whether natural disambiguation is allowed or not by NATURAL due to level of obscurity is entirely besides the point. Yet you chose to take that into account. That’s a SUPERVOTE. —В²C ☎ 21:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a Move review of Aguascalientes City. 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. Red Slash 19:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sceptre! I landed on your userpage following a recent ANI post of yours and I just wanted to say that I am really quite impressed with the visual structure. I am sure you get this a lot, but it's such a pleasure to read through. I've probably spent more time editing my userpage than I care to admit (lmao) and it's always nice to see some inspirations. Ppt91^talk 20:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I would ask you to reconsider this close. The nomination and support votes were based on a flawed premise, that Confait identified as a trans woman. As I said in the discussion, there is no reliable evidence for this. An editor added it to the article a few years ago and the editors who supported the nomination clearly just supported without checking the evidence (or lack of). In any case, this is a well-known murder in British criminal history and the victim is invariably referred to as Maxwell Confait. We cannot apply modern ideas to something that happened fifty years ago. The rename is a clear violation of WP:COMMONNAME. Thanks. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp: The relevant guideline here is MOS:GENDERID, which applies to anyone whose gender might (operative word) be questioned. There's no dispute that there's a question about Confait's gender, and furthermore, it's not disputed that they preferred to be known as "Michelle". Additionally, WP:COMMONNAME allows divergence if the most common name is problematic; the amount of "per nom" comments indicate a general agreement that that's the case. Sceptre (talk) 11:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but, as I said, the whole nomination seems based on an unsourced edit made to the article some years ago that has clearly been taken as true without any evidence. The supporters have merely accepted that it is true without any knowledge of the situation (note they all came before I pointed this out). Nobody fifty years ago would have referred to themselves as a trans woman. We cannot change history to what we think it should be. We can only report what it was. This is a famous murder case and is invariably referred to as the murder of Maxwell Confait. How is it helping our users to use a name that was never actually used in the many reliable sources on the case? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp: Whether Confait would've used the phrase "trans woman" or not isn't within the spirit of MOS:GENDERID; indeed, I have a suspicion that the "might be questioned" line was to catch historical cases such as Sylvia Rivera (et. al) where the line between "homosexual transvestite" and "trans woman" are blurred. I've found two other sources further to what was mentioned in the RM which also talk about Confait in the context of being transgender: Reclaiming Genders by Whittle et al, and this Salon article about Amanda Milan, which talks about Confait's murder being at the top of a long list of murdered trans sex workers. As far as I'm concerned, the Gianassi book, alongside those two sources I've listed in this reply, should be enough to meet the "might be questioned" part of GENDERID. Sceptre (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a Move review of Murder of Michelle Confait. 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. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please rethink or undo this close. Closers ought to know how to intepret policy and assess arguments under the lens of policy, but your closing summary indicates you don't know how to do that, and instead ignored policy based on the local consensus. TITLECHANGES can't be used to oppose change just for the sake of opposing change, and all the other policy-based arguments (COMMONNAME, CONCISE) supported the move. Avilich (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Avilich: I did take those into account those policies, and also the previous RM. I did not see a consensus to move the article, just like the previous RM. I'd be happy to relist if you'd like, but in my opinion, it'll probably be closed again in a week with the same result. Sceptre (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. I won't ask you to relist since it has been a while already, so I'm posting this on move review Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2023 March#1896 Summer Olympics. Avilich (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors March 2023 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the March 2023 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since December and our Annual Report for 2022. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. We extend a warm welcome to all of our new members, including those who have signed up for our current March Backlog Elimination Drive. We wish you all happy copy-editing. Election results: In our December 2022 coordinator election, Reidgreg and Tenryuu stepped down as coordinators; we thank them for their service. Incumbents Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo were returned as coordinators until 1 July. For the second time, no lead coordinator was chosen. Nominations for our mid-year Election of Coordinators open on 1 June (UTC). Drive: 21 editors signed up for our January Backlog Elimination Drive, 14 of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Between them, they copy-edited 170 articles totaling 389,737 words. Barnstars awarded are here. Blitz: Our February Copy Editing Blitz focused on October and November 2022 requests, and the March and April 2022 backlogs. Of the 14 editors who signed up, nine claimed at least one copy-edit; and between them, they copy-edited 39,150 words in 22 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. Drive: Sign up now for our month-long March Backlog Elimination Drive. Barnstars awarded will be posted here after the drive closes. Progress report: As of 12:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 73 requests since 1 January 2023, all but five of them from 2022, and the backlog stands at 1,872 articles. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

The article Combat (Torchwood) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Appears to fail notability, nothing found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2011

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Combat (Torchwood) 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/Combat (Torchwood) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

The redirect Weapons of resident evil 4 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 21 § Weapons of resident evil 4 until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors June 2023 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the June 2023 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since March. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. Election news: Fancy helping out at the Guild? Nominations for our half-yearly Election of Coordinators are open until 23:59 on 15 June (UTC)*. Starting immediately after, the voting phase will run until 23:59 on 30 June. All Wikipedians in good standing are eligible and self-nominations are welcomed; it's your Guild and it doesn't organize itself! Blitz: Of the 17 editors who signed up for our April Copy Editing Blitz, nine editors completed at least one copy-edit. Between them, they copy-edited 24 articles totaling 53,393 words. Barnstars awarded are here. Drive: 51 editors signed up for the month-long May Backlog Elimination Drive, and 31 copy-edited at least one article. 180 articles were copy-edited. Barnstars awarded are posted here. Blitz: Sign up here for our week-long June Copy Editing Blitz, which runs from 11 to 17 June. Barnstars awarded will be posted here. Progress report: As of 03:09 on 6 June 2023, GOCE copyeditors have processed 91 requests since 1 January and the backlog stands at 1,887 articles. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Zippybongo. *All times and dates in this newsletter are in UTC, and may significantly vary from your local time. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disapprove of your move of a relatively unknown person to Albert von Sachsen. That person is by no stretch of the imagination the common name or primary topic for such a term, and if the move is not reverted, I will be taking it to move review. DrKay (talk) 07:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay: I think you've got things backwards here. As there isn't another article that should be at Albert von Sachsen (other than the 18th-century Duke of Teschen, where NCROY applies differently), then the man born in 1934 can be assumed to be the primary topic.

On the subject of COMMONNAME – as has been brought up in several German ex-nobility RMs since the abortive coup attempt last year, the use of princely titles in pretence is a WP:POVTITLE issue, and NCROY's discouragement of the use of such titles has particular weight; the use of these titles has gone from harmless althist nerdery to a far-right shibboleth.

NPOV – as a fundament of the encyclopedia – clearly requires that in the that a POVTITLE's COMMONNAME status is evidenced. It is not enough to say "X is the common name" to oppose moving away from "X" when it has problems; it must be demonstrated through evidence that the name is overwhelmingly the most common name to the point where POVTITLE is met, and in the majority of these RMs, not even the "evidence it's the common name" bar is met. Sceptre (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch, I have to confess I'm a little baffled here. How can you possibly find consensus for a move in such a discussion, when the voting numbers are so clearly not in favour of a move, and the overarching policy argument of WP:COMMONNAME a powerful rationale not to move. Your rationale for closing this, and indeed the previous RM (which I voted against, but then didn't notice it has been closed as moved) rest on the assertion that the long-standing names were "problematic", but the participants in the RM were far from convinced by that argument. As such, your determination as closer doesn't override multiple opinions that thy weren't problematic, which unfortunately makes your close against the numbers a good faith WP:SUPERVOTE. The whole thing is trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS in a way that isn't supported by sources. Please could you look at both of these RMs again and consider objectively whether there's any way it's a consensus to move?  — Amakuru (talk) 10:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: COMMONNAME is not an absolute. As I’ve mentioned here and elsewhere, COMMONNAME allows us to use other article titles if the most common name is problematic, and in none of the ex-German nobility RMs that I’ve closed since then have I been convinced by the arguments the princely titles are not problematic. Mostly, it’s a sea of “per COMMONNAME” arguments without evidence. The onus is on people to prove that COMMONNAMEs pass the higher muster if they’re problematic, and that proof hasn’t been met, and numerical majorities are not a substitute for proof in that regard. Sceptre (talk) 10:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"COMMONNAME is not an absolute" - of course, there are some exceptions but on the other hand, COMMONNAME is listed on a policy page and is widely accepted in countless RM discussions down the years as the standard we use, absent strong reason against, and is a close proxy to Wikipedia's philosophy that we reflect the world as it is, through WP:V and WP:NPOV, rather than attempting to chart a course that editors think is more "correct" than real world usage. In this case, where (a) the common name was clearly for the old title, (b) the numbers in the discussion were clearly for the old title, and (c) the old title was the longstanding status quo, there can be no objective reason for choosing something else. Your interpretation of what's problematic above is your opinion, but you know it's not one of which other editors in good standing such as myself and others share. As such, it is your duty to either close in line with consensus, or simply cast a vote yourself. You don't have the right to impose an alternative view on us in this way. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and NPOV – as one of the five pillars – overrides the "use the common name" shorthand. Like I said, in the case of non-neutral titles, it is incumbent on those wishing to use them to provide evidence that it's the common name – as POVTITLE says, in a "significant majority of English-language sources" — and in the related RMs that I've closed, the evidence – when provided – is sorely lacking. Sceptre (talk) 11:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, what do you mean by "German ex-nobility" which I've seen you use here and there about people whose families were royalty, not nobility? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a Move review of Albert von Sachsen. 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. DrKay (talk) 10:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay: it would be useful to let the discussion above play out before starting a MRV. I also think we should include the December 2022 RM in the mix too, as that also seems to lack consensus and is probably sufficiently recent to challenge.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sceptre:, are you sure you can !vote on your own contested move? It seems to me that your explanation should be prefixed with "Closer's response" or similar, not "Endorse"... Rosbif73 (talk) 12:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cult of Skaro 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/Cult of Skaro until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

There is no longer any ambiguity regarding the surname when it is at "Oppenheimer (surname)". The primary topic does not need to be mentioned in the lede. The thing you're referring to would apply to Oppenheimer (disambiguation), which I already changed. —Xezbeth (talk) 13:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Xezbeth: At the same time, JRO does need to be in Oppenheimer (surname) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I'm relaxed on where it is, but given the prominence of the primary topic… the lede seemed more appropriate than buried in the weeds; some people might still get to the page by that page! Sceptre (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm cleaning up the dwindling number of fostered content WP:LINT errors on Wikipedia, and only 8 remain within user talk space. One of those is on your User talk:Sceptre/Archive 13 within the "Awww Will!" section. If you would be willing, would you please make the following adjustment?

{| style="vertical-align:top" |
<div id="Awardbar" class="noprint" style="border:1px solid #000000; background:#fff; margin:0.5em 0.5em 0.5em 1em; text-align:center; padding:6px; float:right; font-size: 0.9em; width: 110px; ">This Barnstar is presented to<br />[[Image:Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar.png|110px]]<br />'''<span style="font-size:1.1em;">'''Will'''</span>'''<br />for always being close to me and willing to make me smile and cheer me up when I need it the most.<br />Thank you! :)<span style="font-size:1em;"><br />[[User:Phaedriel|<b><span style="color:#009900;">P</span><span style="color:#00AA00;">h</span><span style="color:#00BB00;">a</span><span style="color:#00CC00;">e</span><span style="color:#00DD00;">d</span><span style="color:#00CC00;">r</span><span style="color:#00BB00;">i</span><span style="color:#00AA00;">e</span><span style="color:#009900;">l</span></b>]] </span></div>
|}That's ''such'' a beautiful cat, my dear Will - thank you so much! My talk page seems to be filling lately with pictures of lovely cats, how did you even knew I love them? Anyway, hun, I didn't want to go to bed before thanking you - the 4th of July has been tough on me, and I've hardly had any sleep in the last day; but in the meantime, beutiful messages have appeared in my talk page and I "always" reply, even if it takes me some time. I hope you're doing great, and enjoy this - you deserve it! Hugs, [[User:Phaedriel|<b><span style="color:#00BB00;">Phædriel</span></b>]] <b><span style="color:#FF0000;">♥</span></b> [[User talk:Phaedriel|'''<small><span style="color:#22AA00;">tell me</span></small>''']] - 00:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

{| style="vertical-align:top; float:right;"
|<div id="Awardbar" class="noprint" style="border:1px solid #000000; background:#fff; margin:0.5em 0.5em 0.5em 1em; text-align:center; padding:6px; font-size: 0.9em; width: 110px; ">This Barnstar is presented to<br />[[Image:Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar.png|110px]]<br /><span style="font-size:1.1em;">'''Will'''</span><br />for always being close to me and willing to make me smile and cheer me up when I need it the most.<br />Thank you! :)<span style="font-size:1em;"><br />[[User:Phaedriel|<b><span style="color:#009900">P</span><span style="color:#00AA00">h</span><span style="color:#00BB00">a</span><span style="color:#00CC00">e</span><span style="color:#00DD00">d</span><span style="color:#00CC00">r</span><span style="color:#00BB00">i</span><span style="color:#00AA00">e</span><span style="color:#009900">l</span></b>]] </span></div>
|}That's ''such'' a beautiful cat, my dear Will - thank you so much! My talk page seems to be filling lately with pictures of lovely cats, how did you even knew I love them? Anyway, hun, I didn't want to go to bed before thanking you - the 4th of July has been tough on me, and I've hardly had any sleep in the last day; but in the meantime, beutiful messages have appeared in my talk page and I "always" reply, even if it takes me some time. I hope you're doing great, and enjoy this - you deserve it! Hugs, [[User:Phaedriel|<b><span style="color:#00BB00">Phædriel</span></b>]] <b><span style="color:#FF0000">♥</span></b> [[User talk:Phaedriel|'''<small><span style="color:#22AA00">tell me</span></small>''']] - 00:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This will correct this fostered content issue, and replace the fonts for span style to address the neighboring obsolete tag issues. Thank you! Zinnober9 (talk) 01:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zinnober9: The page is full-protected so I've added a FPER tag so an admin can do it instead. Sceptre (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Legoktm (talk) 02:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed that you weren't able to access the page, Sceptre. Thank you for the assist, Legoktm. Zinnober9 (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your close at Talk:Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (classified documents case) was way too early; it has literally been only a day and a half since the indictment, which is not enough time for discussion to evolve. Furthermore, the existing !votes don't support that there is any consensus either way yet, especially since the original proposer stated that they no longer exclusively support their original title and is open to further discussion. Please reverse the close and let the RM play out over a normal timeframe. Thanks. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 04:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Antony22: From my reading there's a general consensus that the articles about the two indictments should be similarly titled, and I have no opinion on what form this should take, and no objection to an immediate further RM encompassing both. That said, I don't think the timing of the election interference indictment is that relevant; it had been inevitable for some time, and I don't think there was a dearth of discussion warranting it being deliberately kept in the RM backlog. Sceptre (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I'd appreciate it if you could clarify your close that the consensus only applies to there being a parenthetical "government documents" to "classified documents" while discussion was actively ongoing between the two possibilities, and if there was no consensus, then that change shouldn't have been made. I'd rather not have to do another RM over that if possible. Thanks. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 05:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please review your close here. It does not seem to me reflect the actual consensus or evidence. Srnec (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec: See the discussion section of the move request. It's very clear from the evidence provided by Ham II that the version with the patronymic are the COMMONNAME. The English form is very slightly than with either of the Welsh forms alone, but I don't think it's reasonable to argue that the English form "wins" because of people having different opinions on how much the vocal folds need to vibrate before you use a specific consonant. Sceptre (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you closed the moving discussion thing in Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi but the page didn't get moved Abo Yemen✉ 16:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors September 2023 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the September 2023 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since June. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. David Thomsen: Prolific Wikipedian and Guild member David Thomsen (Dthomsen8) died in November 2022. He was a regular copy editor who took part in many of our Drives and Blitzes. An obituary was published in the mid-July issue of The Signpost. Tributes can be left on David's talk page. Election news: In our mid-year Election of Coordinators, Dhtwiki was chosen as lead coordinator, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo continue as assistant coordinators, and Baffle gab1978 stepped down from the role. If you're interested in helping out at the GOCE, please consider nominating yourself for our next election in December; it's your WikiProject and it doesn't organize itself! June Blitz: Of the 17 editors who signed up for our June Copy Editing Blitz, 12 copy-edited at least one article. 70,035 words comprising 26 articles were copy-edited. Barnstars awarded are here. July Drive: 34 of the 51 editors who took part in our July Backlog Elimination Drive copy-edited at least one article. They edited 276 articles and 683,633 words between them. Barnstars awarded are here. August Blitz: In our August Copy Editing Blitz, 13 of the 16 editors who signed up worked on at least one article. Between them, they copy-edited 79,608 words comprising 57 articles. Barnstars awarded are available here. September Drive: Sign up here for our month-long September Backlog Elimination Drive, which is now underway. Barnstars awarded will be posted here. Progress report: As of 14:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC), GOCE copy editors have processed 245 requests since 1 January. The backlog of tagged articles stands at 2,066. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please update the category code in your boxes.css page from Wikipedia AfC reviewers to Wikipedia Articles for Creation reviewers. – Fayenatic London 07:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors December 2023 Newsletter Hello, and welcome to the December 2023 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since September. Don't forget that you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. Election news: The Guild needs coordinators! If you'd like to help out, you may nominate yourself or any suitable editor—with their permission—for the Election of Coordinators for the first half of 2024. Nominations will close at 23:59 on 15 December (UTC). Voting begins immediately after the close of nominations and closes at 23:59 on 31 December. All editors in good standing (not under current sanctions) are eligible, and self-nominations are welcome. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term that ends at 23:59 on 30 June. Drive: Of the 69 editors who signed up for the September Backlog Elimination Drive, 40 copy-edited at least one article. Between them, they copy-edited 661,214 words in 290 articles. Barnstars awarded are listed here. Blitz: Of the 22 editors who signed up for the October Copy Editing Blitz, 13 copy-edited at least one article. Between them, they copy-edited 109,327 words in 52 articles. Barnstars awarded are listed here. Drive: During the November Backlog Elimination Drive, 38 of the 58 editors who signed up copy-edited at least one article. Between them, they copy-edited 458,620 words in 234 articles. Barnstars awarded are listed here. Blitz: Our December Copy Editing Blitz will run from 10 to 16 December. Barnstars awarded will be posted here. Progress report: As of 20:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 344 requests since 1 January, and the backlog stands at 2,191 articles. Other news: Our Annual Report for 2023 is planned for release in the new year. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Message sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited Revolution (2024), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mike Bennett.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Cassiopeia. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Dustin Poirier, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Cassiopeia talk 02:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sceptre, you are welcome to put back the info if you can provide independent, reliable source to support the claim for verification. Cassiopeia talk 02:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors 2023 Annual Report Our 2023 Annual Report is now ready for review. Highlights: Introduction Membership news, obituary and election results Summary of Drives, Blitzes and the Requests page Closing words – Your Guild coordinators: Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Wracking. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Hi @Sceptre

I am reaching out to you because of your previous participation in one of the discussions regarding the reliability and neutrality of HuffPost/Pink News/ProPublica as sources used on Wikipedia.

Currently, there is an ongoing issue with the Edelman Family Foundation section in the Joseph Edelman Wikipedia article. The section appears to be biased and lacks a balanced representation of the foundation's activities, as it primarily focuses on a single controversial donation while neglecting to mention the organization's numerous other significant contributions to various causes.

I would like to invite you to participate in the discussion on the BLP Noticeboard to address the concerns surrounding the section's neutrality and explore ways to improve its content. Llama Tierna (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please would you update your relevant user sub-page from Category:Wikipedia Good Article contributors to lowercase? – Fayenatic London 14:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant to Category:Wikipedia good article contributors – lowercase g too. – Fayenatic London 21:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! Interested in having a chat with fellow Wikipedians? There's a meetup in Leeds on Saturday 4th May 2024, at the Tiled Hall Café at Leeds Central Library.

Full details here.

You're receiving this one-off message as you're either a member of WikiProject Yorkshire, you've expressed an interest in a previous Leeds meetup years ago, or (for about 4 of you), we've met :)

I plan to organise more in future, so if you'd like to be notified next time, please say so over on the meetup page.

Please also invite any Wikimedia people you know (or have had wiki dealings with) – spread the word! Hope to see you there.

Jonathan Deamer (talk)

20:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors April 2024 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the April 2024 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since December. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. We extend a warm welcome to all of our new members. We wish you all happy copy-editing. Election results: In our December 2023 coordinator election, Zippybonzo stepped down as coordinator; we thank them for their service. Incumbents Dhtwiki and Miniapolis were reelected coordinators, and Wracking was newly elected coordinator, to serve through 30 June. Nominations for our mid-year Election of Coordinators will open on 1 June (UTC). Drive: 46 editors signed up for our January Backlog Elimination Drive, 32 of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Between them, they copy-edited 289 articles totaling 626,729 words. Barnstars awarded are here. Blitz: 23 editors signed up for our February Copy Editing Blitz. 18 claimed at least one copy-edit and between them, they copy-edited 100,293 words in 32 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. Drive: 53 editors signed up for our March Backlog Elimination Drive, 34 of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Between them, they copy-edited 300 articles totaling 587,828 words. Barnstars awarded are here. Blitz: Sign up for our April Copy Editing Blitz, which runs from 14 to 20 April. Barnstars will be awarded here. Progress report: As of 23:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 109 requests since 1 January 2024, and the backlog stands at 2,480 articles. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from Baffle gab1978 and your GOCE coordinators Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Wracking. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Hello there.

It's been a strange year. I let our relationship lapse and I'm sorry. It's mostly, but not entirely, because I abjectly refuse to use Discord anymore and I forgot my Matrix credentials.

Email would be good. Jitsi coffee dates would be good. I still think of you. But if you don't want to anymore, I completely understand.

Sasha foxxo (talk) 00:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per a request by SnowFire (talk · contribs), because of your participation in Talk:Michael Larson#Requested move 22 March 2024, you are being brought up to date on developments. After the article "Press Your Luck scandal" was written, "Michael Larson" was turned into a redirect. That redirect has since been undone (though mischaracterized as a "stealth copy & paste move"), and there are now two active discussions in which you may wish to participate, but might otherwise be unaware of:

• Talk:Press Your Luck scandal#Separate articles is discussing WP:BIO1E, the article title, and more.
• Talk:Michael Larson (disambiguation)#Requested move 1 May 2024 is discussing which page should be the primary topic and more.

I'm certainly involved in these discussions and will be happy to converse with you there if you're inclined. My apologies if this is undue, but it was implied that I have been negligent in my canvassing. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sceptre, at Talk:1933 NFL Championship Game#Requested move 3 May 2024 and Talk:AFC Championship Game#Requested move 29 April 2024 you simply said "not moved", without saying how you weighed the arguments, and without indicating whether you saw a consensus for uppercase, versus no consensus. Could you please expand on those closing statements? Dicklyon (talk) 22:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007: et al had the correct interpretation of MOS:SPORTSCAPS. The pre-Super Bowl championship games (and the conference championships, for that matter) are more often capitalised than not, especially as they're trademarked. Sceptre (talk) 23:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will you be adding those rationales to the close statements, please? Dicklyon (talk) 02:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Is NFL Draft trademarked? Not that I'd necessarily reopen that can of brain-worms (and, importantly, and unlike the conference championship games, uppercasing does not "lead" in its n-gram derby). Randy Kryn (talk) 04:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sceptre: I don't think the trademark rationale was used by anyone, was it? And I have some doubt whether it really is trademarked. Consider striking it from your close.—Bagumba (talk) 23:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sceptre, I think I'll need to call a move review if you don't re-list these. Your reasoning sounds too much like a super-vote based on non-facts and unsupported opinions, as opposed to a reasonable weighing of the positions articulated. Dicklyon (talk) 23:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you haven't edited since before this; I'll be patient (sort of). Dicklyon (talk) 05:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dicklyon: Apologies, I was off-wiki yesterday. I've added the above rationale to each closure, but I strongly dispute the idea that they're supervotes. Sometimes, the consensus just isn't there. Sceptre (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sceptre, I've no problem with your closures & will endorse them if they're challenged. But, I recommend that you elaborate on your closures at the two RMs, to avoid it being challenged. GoodDay (talk) 00:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a Move review of AFC Championship Game. 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. Dicklyon (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a Move review of 1933 NFL Championship Game. 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. Dicklyon (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors June 2024 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the June 2024 newsletter, a quarterly-ish digest of Guild activities since April. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. Election news: Wanted: new Guild coordinators! If you value and enjoy the GOCE, why not help out behind the scenes? Nominations for our mid-year coordinator election are now open until 23:59 on 15 June (UTC). Self-nominations are welcome. Voting commences at 00:01 on 16 June and continues until 23:50 on 30 June. Results will be announced at the election page. Blitz: Nine of the fourteen editors who signed up for the April 2024 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited at least one article. Between them, they copy edited 55,853 words comprising twenty articles. Barnstars awarded are available here. Drive: 58 editors signed up for our May 2024 Backlog Elimination Drive and 33 of those completed at least one copy edit. 251 articles and 475,952 words were copy edited. Barnstars awarded are here. Blitz: Our June 2024 Copy Editing Blitz will begin on 16 June and finish on 22 June. Barnstars awarded will be posted here. Progress report: As of 05:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC) , GOCE copyeditors have completed 161 requests since 1 January and the backlog stands at 2,779 articles. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from Baffle gab1978 and your GOCE coordinators Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Wracking. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Hi Sceptre, I work for Brookfield Properties, and I am trying to update the page to include that the company operates in 9 locations. You made helpful contributions to the Brookfield Properties article a few years ago, and I'm hoping you will take a look at my edit request and consider making the edit . Thanks for your help, Claudiailagan (talk) 15:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Space-Time Telegraph Volume II, Issue I — July 2024 Brought to you by the editors of WikiProject Doctor Who Okay–ooh. New teeth newsletter. That's weird... Hello! Welcome to the first regenerated issue of The Space-Time Telegraph, the official newsletter of WikiProject Doctor Who. We hope it finds you well in your safe travels across the Whoniverse! This newsletter was founded in 2008 and seemed to get lost in the time vortex quite quickly. Thanks to the Doctor dragging Sutekh through the time vortex and bringing life by bringing death to death (yeah... I'm a little confused too), it seems to have regenerated. The writing staff hopes to bring you future editions quarterly. For this first edition, we have created an updated version of our mailing list that includes any active editors who previously had their usernames included in our participants list. If you do not wish to receive future editions, please remove your name from the mailing list. If you no longer wish to participate in the project, please also remove your name from the participants list. I think that's enough about the newsletter for now. Let's dive into interesting things happening within the Doctor Who side of Wikipedia. Geronimooooo..... Big Spike in Productivity During 2024, the project has scored 8 GAs, 2 FLs and a GT, up from last year's 4 GAs and a GT. Several additional things are in the pipeline, with a bunch of things currently having been nominated with some mix of OlifanofmrTennant, TheDoctorWho, and Pokelego999 having their names attached to them. Allow me to look into the nominees. Series 14: As of July 18th, every single episode has been sent to GAN, with "Boom", "73 Yards", and "The Devil's Chord" having made it to GA. 2023 Specials: Early in the year, as part of trying to not lose the WikiCup, Ollie sent "The Star Beast" (still salty about the move) to GAN. It was reviewed by frequent collaborator (fly high) of hers, but failed. She then fixed it up and sent it back where it passed. Later "The Giggle" was expanded and sent to GA, followed shortly by "Wild Blue Yonder". WBY received help by JustAnotherCompanion, a pretty fresh user. This other companion chose not to be listed as co-nom. A page was created for "Destination: Skaro" and quickly got GA status. The Daleks' Master Plan was also sent to GAN by Rhain. It passed to join Rhain's other First Doctor content, being the fourth season three article to get the green check. Peter Capaldi: The filmography and newly created awards of Capaldi were both sent to FLC and passed. Capaldi's main page was sent to GA, though due to some minor incompetence on the part of the nominator it was failed. Proposals to the WikiProject A recent proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who suggested potential improvements and suggestions for the main page of the project, as well as discussions about the project overall. The proposals are as follows: The Task Forces section should be removed due to inactivity in the Torchwood Task Force, and a lack of significant interest in creating further Task Forces. The freenode channel no longer works and should be removed due to most discussion taking place on site. Due to the low quality of Lungbarrow and Jubilee despite being sample articles, these articles should either be removed as samples or improved. Additionally, the "sample device" has a very small application field, and should be removed from the sample articles section. An updates infobox should be included, similarly to those used by Wikipedia:VGCHAR. Radio Times's Doctor Who sections should be included in the references section due to their benefits for the project sourcing wise. The Deletion Discussion archive should be removed, or have work invested in updating it, due to its lack of updates. If you feel you have any thoughts or suggestions on these matters, or on any other matters pertaining to the project and its main page, feel free to chime in the ongoing discussion. Discussions of Note A move discussion is currently underway on whether or not Doctor Who series 14 should be moved to Doctor Who season 1 (2024). The discussion also involves conversation on a few other adjacent articles. If you have an opinion on the matter please read over the discussion or leave comments. Contributors TheDoctorWho (talk) Pokelego999 (talk) Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) If you wish to contribute to future editions of the newsletter, leave a message on the WikiProject talk page or reach out to one of the current contributors listed above. If you do not wish to receive future editions of the Space-Time Telegraph, please remove your name from our our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ongoing discussion taking place at the following articles, regarding whether the current redirects should be removed, which may be of interest to this user:

1. Talk: A109 road
2. Talk: A110 road
3. Talk: A111 road
4. Talk: A112 road (England):
5. Talk: A124 road:
6. Talk: A129 road:
7. Talk: A134 road:
8. Talk: A157 road:
9. Talk: A159 road:
10. Talk: A177 road:
11. Talk: A182 road:
12. Talk: A189 road:
13. Talk: A1011 road:
14. Talk: A1066 road:
15. Talk: A1151 road:
16. Talk: A1200 road:
17. Talk: A1231 road:
18. Talk: A1260 road:
19. Talk: A1303 road:
20. Talk: A213 road:
21. Talk: A222 road:
22. Talk: A225 road:
23. Talk: A227 road:
24. Talk: A230 road:
25. Talk: A235 road:
26. Talk: A236 road:
27. Talk: A237 road:
28. Talk: A2217 road:
29. Talk: A346 road:
30. Talk: A3400 road:
31. Talk: A425 road:
32. Talk: A435 road:
33. Talk: A461 road:
34. Talk: A472 road:
35. Talk: A480 road:
36. Talk: A484 road:
37. Talk: A488 road:
38. Talk: A497 road:
39. Talk: A4012 road:
40. Talk: A4037 road:
41. Talk: A4040 road:
42. Talk: A4067 road:
43. Talk: A4110 road:
44. Talk: A4133 road:
45. Talk: A4173 road
46. Talk: A4212 road:
47. Talk: A4217 road:
48. Talk: A5183 road:
49. Talk: A828 road:

Please see the necessary talk pages for more information. Regards, Roads4117 (talk) 13:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place centrally at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography#Removing_redirects_(re-creating_pages) rather than at each individual article talk page. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors September Newsletter Hello and welcome to the September newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since June. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. Election news: Project coordinators play an important role in our WikiProject. Following the mid-year Election of Coordinators, we welcomed Mox Eden to the coordinator team. Dhtwiki remains as Lead Coordinator, and Miniapolis and Wracking returned as assistant coordinators. If you'd like to help out behind the scenes, please consider taking part in our December election – watchlist our ombox for updates. Information about the role of coordinators can be found here. Blitz: 13 of the 24 editors who signed up for the June 2024 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited at least one article. Between them, they copy edited 169,404 words comprising 41 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. Drive: 38 of the 59 editors who signed up for the July 2024 Backlog Elimination Drive copy edited at least one article. Between them, they copy edited 482,133 words comprising 293 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. Blitz: 10 of the 15 editors who signed up for the August 2024 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited at least one article. Between them, they copy edited 71,294 words comprising 31 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. Drive: Sign up here to earn barnstars in our month-long, in-progress September Backlog Elimination Drive. Progress report: As of 05:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 233 requests since 1 January, and the backlog of tagged articles stands at 2,824 articles. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we do without you! Cheers from Baffle gab1978 and your GOCE coordinators Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, Mox Eden and Wracking. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Message sent by Baffle gab1978 (talk) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Space-Time Telegraph Volume II, Issue II — September 2024 Brought to you by the editors of WikiProject Doctor Who You like Doctor Who? What's his name then? Welcome Hello and welcome to the second issue of the new newsletter! Following the success of the first newsletter we are back to write more stuff. Articles for deletion Several articles have been nominated for deletion, such as Time War (Doctor Who), and several articles have been deleted, or merged or redirected, especially those relating to books, due to lack of WP:SIGCOV and WP:NBOOK. Editors can always help either by participating in the deletion discussions (which are noted on the project page), adding to such articles, or bringing attention to other such articles through AfD or the WikiProject talk page, to aid in clean-up. Notice of Draft Articles A new Doctor Who spin-off was announced at the 2024 San Diego Comic-Con, called The War Between the Land and the Sea, and will feature old and new Whoniverse characters working for UNIT as they battle the Sea Devils. The main space article currently redirects to Whoniverse, but collaboration is currently underway in a draft article. As filming on this miniseries has recently begun, its relocation to the mains space will presumably take place soon per the recommendations laid out at WP:NTV. There is also a draft article in progress for the upcoming 2024 Christmas special. While this article won't be moved until the episode airs, any new contributions are welcome. Doctor Who News A small number of editors have recently raised questions regarding the reliability of Doctor Who News. This website is particularly used for information regarding viewing figures and the Appreciation Index of most episodes as well as some news information. If there is a better source for any information supported by this website, it should be replaced in good faith. A full consensus on whether or not to remove the information that can't be supported by a different source has not yet been reached. Any editor who has opinions on this matter should contribute to the discussion on the WikiProject talk page. Continued Progress Towards Good/Featured Content There has been lots of progress made towards recognized articles in the last two months, related to such diverse categories as series, specials, lists and episodes A sub-page has also been added to the WikiProject, to list any possible goals we can aim towards. Proposals Regarding the State of Fictional Elements Articles in the WikiProject Several proposals have been laid out regarding fictional elements in the WikiProject, which includes fictional characters, locations, and more. Due to a concerning quality state regarding the large majority of them, several methods of tackling them in order to improve these articles' quality for the future have been proposed. The primary three proposals are as follows: 1. A priority list should be made to determine what articles are most pressing and in need of improvement in the WikiProject overall. Focus would be put onto important subjects and articles in a state of dubious notability that would make them viable for deletion processes such as AfD. 2. A group of articles is selected for improvement, which are ones deemed most relevant to the WikiProject for the future. Any lesser important subjects can be sidelined and worked on as editors see fit. 3. A long term goal is made to improve all elements. This will come at the caveat of taking significantly longer and requiring more heavy participation than the above two proposals, but would guarantee a slow and steady way to solve the issue. If any editors are interested in chiming into the conversation and sharing their piece on how this should be handled, or if any editors wish to help with this proposal and improve fictional elements articles, then feel free to share thoughts at the discussion's section on the article's talk page. Contributors TheDoctorWho (talk) Pokelego999 (talk) Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) "I'm not appalled by it" - The New New York Times If you wish to contribute to future editions of the newsletter or have any feedback, leave a message on the WikiProject talk page or reach out to one of the current contributors listed above. If you do not wish to receive future editions of the Space-Time Telegraph, please remove your name from our our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Template:Test3a has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 20 § Template:Test3a until a consensus is reached. Gonnym (talk) 08:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to initiate a contest of this closing decision: Talk:Grooming gang moral panic in the United Kingdom#c-Sceptre-20241007193500-Requested move 3 September 2024

That does not appear like consensus. The reasoning was very weak. The subject of "Moral Panic" is a separate issue from whether these incidents happened, which they did, and which the well published facts show was actually suppressed by both media and law enforcement. If there should be a page on moral panic. It should be a separate page, not a very clear re-characterization of the facts themselves. Bluetik (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While the discussion was heated, I disagree that there was no consensus. It seems that the consensus was to rename it to something more accurate. The vast majority of the disagreement seemed to devolve rapidly into irrelevant discussion on the topic itself. --Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 17:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I don't edit this part of Wikipedia, but the argument that there was a consensus for this move doesn't look compelling to me. I count 21 "support" and 9 "oppose". I have seen move requests rejected with even larger majorities. I think there was at best a consensus for a move, but not *this* move. I think Sceptre should reconsider and give several options for a new title. The current title looks very biased and I would have opposed it. Concerns about grooming gangs were legitimate; labelling them as moral panic is a gross exaggeration. There was some kind of a paranoia with racist elements--of course--, but this should be developed within the article, as a section of the article. T8612 (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@T8612 I understand your concern, but discussions are a debate, not a vote. I will note that there is a misconception about the article in question: it is about the media focusing on a specific type of case. The events themselves are covered in their own articles, largely linked in the talk page. Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 05:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like most of the traffic is coming from this tweet: https://x.com/jackguyanderton/status/1843631695037378628?s=46

from a right wing account with of course right wing followers who have been brigading the pages including the talk page of the article. Canvassing for more “votes” per se is what is happening to try and force a move. 12.39.17.119 (talk) 14:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sceptre. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Doug Weller talk 07:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, and happy upcoming Halloween. Would like to request that you change your close at the lowercasing RM of Eurasian Plate, possibly to "no consensus", as the uppercasing has many secondary sources accepting it as a proper name. The opposition to lowercasing from geologists and other long-term editors seems to easily balance out the arguments about it not being a proper name.

In particular, you base much of your close on the AGU style guide. The guide accepts uppercasing as a proper name, and specifically states: "The following may be either capitalized or lowercase except as indicated below: anticline, arc, bank, basin, butte, channel, crater (e.g., on Earth, the Moon, or Mars), fault, fold, formation, geyser, glacier, mount, plate, plateau, ridge, rill, strait, syncline, trench, trough, volcano. Be consistent throughout the paper. (...) plate (follow author within paper for capitalization)". AGU upper or lowercases, dependent on the author's use in their paper. In other words, a proper name is fine, just that the caps stay consistent within each published paper.

Uppercasing is the style of, among many other sources, Britannica, Encylopedia.com,The Free Dictionary and, importantly, Geology.com. Uppercasing the names of tectonic plates is not a miscapitalization, but is a normal proper name casing for these topics, which have been uppercased on Wikipedia for well over 20 years. Since a reconsideration seems reasonable on a close re-reading of the discussion, I hope you would ponder this for a few hours, or a day or two. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn: I think you may be misreading how much stock I'm putting in the AGU style guide. In actual fact, I put more stock into the ngrams results (and other sources as provided in the RM), which don't show the level of capitalisation that would indicate that something is a proper name. Where the line between what Wikipedia should treat as a proper name or not is up for interpretation, but I don't think half-and-half is the "consistent" capitalisation in as asked for at MOS:CAPS. The use of capitals in respect of tectonic plates is not incorrect, but the weight of evidenced arguments in the RM was in favour of decapitalisation even though the numeric weight was the other way. Sceptre (talk) 15:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and I haven't forgotten this discussion and will take it up again at some point soon (maybe it will move at the speed of plate tectonics). The n-grams are analyzed well during the discussion as being inaccurate. You did mention the AGU stylebook in particular, which is why I point out that AGU views them as proper names as well as allowing lowercasing on particular papers (but a proper name is always a proper name, as the song goes). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your close here and would like to urge you to stick to WP:STATUSQUO. Many of the recently published news sources are still using "Bangalore", not "Bengaluru".[13][14] - Ratnahastin (talk) 04:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the results for these two sites since October 31, 2023 are 4,880-562 favoring Bengaluru for Outlook India and 1,750-958 for Bengaluru in Telegraph India, since neither of them were included in the dataset of sites provided. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 08:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Ratnahastin, I am not sure if it is relevant but both the sites you mentioned are not listed in WP:RSPSOURCES. Manthara^talk 14:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read the opening line? The following presents a non-exhaustive list of sources whose reliability and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed. Whether a source is mentioned there or not has no bearing on its reliability. - Ratnahastin (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Manthara^talk 14:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to Skarmory for basically taking the words of my mouth here. Whilst I recognise some sources still use "Bangalore" instead of "Bengalaru", we can't base everything on just one or two sources, which is why analyses like Skarmory's are incredibly useful in these discussions, especially for the closer, which showed that -- in the round -- "Bengalaru" is now favoured in quite a lot of RSes. Sceptre (talk) 16:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need a clear case here. The results are still divided with many sources still using "Bengaluru" thus the status quo should be maintained. - Ratnahastin (talk) 07:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With Reuters and AP, it's 20:1 in favour of "Bengaluru". In South Asian sources, the ratio is 10:1. Even in Western sources, "Bengaluru" is now preferred (although with the standard "formerly Bangalore" construction, in some cases). Only two sources provided in Manthara and Skarmory's analysis preferred "Bangalore": The Irish Times, which is now 8:7 in favour of "Bengaluru", and The Gleaner, which is entirely because of the IPL team, and they've since switched to "Bengaluru" for the past season. I don't know how much more clearer you want it to be. Sceptre (talk) 12:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My take on this is that post closure discussions like this should focus on the close itself, rather than relitigating the discussion (as seems to be happening here). I have no issues with the close and think it's an accurate reflection of the discussion, so it should be seen as settled and the move implemented. Great job on this one, Sceptre. Turnagra (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite reliable sources when adding matches, like you did in the article Winter Is Coming (2024) per the hidden note at the top of the results table. Also the event has not aired yet so please do not use past tense when referring to future events. Lemonademan22 (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lemonademan22: I don't think you should be upset at me specifically, because the net result was actually cutting down some of the unsourced information (i.e. they haven't actually confirmed Rampage is under the Winter is Coming label). I think it's pretty clear from a cursory glance of the page history and seeing the matches were added during Dynamite that they were announced on the broadcast. Sceptre (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sceptre: You are mistaken, I'm not upset with you, merely pointing out the errors you made in the editing. Rampage has actually been confirmed but that is my bad for not sourcing that. On the topic of sourcing matches, even if they are announced on the broadcast, reliable sources must be utilised and cited on all articles, I mentioned the hidden note in my first reply and that states not to put unsourced material in the results box and to use high quality sources when adding them. Lemonademan22 (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remember not to use bare references like you did in Winter Is Coming. Lemonademan22 (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors December 2024 Newsletter Hello, and welcome to the December newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since September. If you no longer want this newsletter, you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. If you'd like to be notified of upcoming drives and blitzes, and other GOCE activities, the best method is to add our announcements box to your watchlist. Election news: The Guild's coordinators play an important role in the WikiProject, making sure nearly everything runs smoothly and on time. Editors in good standing (unblocked and without sanctions) are invited to nominate themselves or another editor to be a Guild coordinator (with their permission, of course) until 23:59 on 15 December (UTC). The voting phase begins at 00:01 on 16 December and runs until 23:59 on 31 December. Questions may be asked of candidates at any stage in the process. Elected coordinators will serve a six-month term from 1 January through 30 June. Drive: In our September Backlog Elimination Drive, 67 editors signed up, 39 completed at least one copy edit, and between them they edited 682,696 words comprising 507 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. Blitz: The October Copy Editing Blitz saw 16 editors sign-up, 15 of whom completed at least one copy edit. They edited 76,776 words comprising 35 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. Drive: In our November Backlog Elimination Drive, 432,320 words in 151 articles were copy edited. Of the 54 users who signed up, 33 copy edited at least one article. Barnstars awarded are posted here. Blitz: The December Blitz will begin at 00:00 on 15 December (UTC) and will end on 21 December at 23:59. Sign up here. Barnstars awarded will be posted here. Progress report: As of 22:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC), GOCE copy editors have completed 333 requests since 1 January, and the backlog of tagged articles stands at 2,401 articles. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, Mox Eden and Wracking. To stop receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Message sent by Baffle_gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Please can I have your input on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thanksgiving Eve Dynamite (2023)? Thanks. Lemonademan22 (talk) 00:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sceptre, the close you made on Talk:Timor-Leste reads like a supervote. "I am satisfied that "Timor Leste" is now the dominant term." is a !vote, not a gauging of consensus on the discussion. CMD (talk) 03:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]