Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Archives: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 · 30 · 31 · 32 · 33 · 34 · 35 · 36

August

Sunflowers in Walsdorf

A first for me today: a featured list (= a featured topic in this case) on the Main page, see Wikipedia:Main Page history/2020 August 21, an initiative by Aza24 in memory of Brian. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: congratulations! Always a great feeling getting something up on the main page like that, and such a great topic too (not that I'm familiar with any of those operas... something to do in future!). Very nice to be remembering the late great Brian too and linking all his hard work into a featured topic. I should try for an FL and/or FT myself at some point, don't have any of those yet. All the best and hope you have a great weekend.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Today: Rhythm Is It! - I expanded that stub on my dad's birthday because we saw the film together back then, and were impressed. As a ref said: every educator should see it. Don't miss the trailer, for a starter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: thanks, I have just watched the trailer and read your article and it sounds like a fascinating film. I saw Simon Rattle many years ago, when he was still with the City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra... I think the Rite of Spring may have featured in that concert as well... Great to see these kinds of events with young people as well!  — Amakuru (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Good close with an excellent summary at talk:climate change. Thank you. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: thanks for your kind message! I half expected some objections to come through from those in opposition, but so far so good! Perhaps my summary was clear enough that it has been accepted all around... All the best  — Amakuru (talk) 22:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Amakuru, I think that when it's a close call and a contentious issue, explaining your rationale clearly is a great idea - and I think that is why you've not had pushback (so far...). This is how Wikipedia should be done, and I think your explanation was exemplary. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Amakuru, Likewise, thank you for executing our move proposal! This has been going in circles for years. It's important that you got this done now in particular as User:Femkemilene is working towards featured article status. It's a classic scenario where the half of people opposing the move mostly had different objectives. It was just down to somebody taking action based on the logic of the move instead of waiting for consensus, which is hard to do. You did and explained yourself well, so thanks! Efbrazil (talk) 19:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The portal Portal:Global warming needs to be similarly renamed to Portal:Climate change. I put in a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. Just a heads up in case you want run with that too! Efbrazil (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi "Amakura", [[1]] is the link to where I got GM's pic from. Thegameshowlad (talk) 15:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Amakura, @Ser Amantio di Nicolao Here it is, you can have a look at it and tell me what you think, remember to ping me as I may not see it. Thegameshowlad (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to move it back to draft space as no one fully reviewed it. By your own statement here, he might not be "famous" or notable enough for an article. only (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

He is as he has worked at Uefa for YEARS, it is better to have that than not. Thegameshowlad (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I requested this move a week ago. It looks like this is about all the response we're going to get. Would you be able to handle the move request? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 11:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Yoninah: OK, I've closed it as moved, consensus seems clear. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Yoninah (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Coventry ring road

added links pointing to Turnpike, Rugby, A46, Donald Gibson and Tarmac

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The article 2017 EFL Trophy Final you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2017 EFL Trophy Final for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 08:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The fourth round of the competition has finished, with 865 points being required to qualify for the final round, nearly twice as many points as last year. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with 598 and 605 points being eliminated, and all but two of the contestants who reached the final round having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were

• Bloom6132, with 1478 points gained mainly from 5 featured lists, 12 DYKs and 63 in the news items;
• HaEr48 with 1318 points gained mainly from 2 featured articles, 5 good articles and 8 DYKs;
• Lee Vilenski with 1201 points mainly gained from 2 featured articles and 10 good articles.

Between them, contestants achieved 14 featured articles, 14 featured lists, 2 featured pictures, 87 good articles, 90 DYK entries, 75 ITN entries, 95 featured article candidate reviews and 81 good article reviews. Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

"The result of the move request was: Not moved. There are more opposes than supports, and they cite the observation that the subject is commonly known in English without the diacritics. Some supporters pointed out that she uses it on her social media sites, but then others were identified that do not use it, so the MOS:IDENTITY argument is somewhat weak. Overall there is a rough consensus against moving at this time. — Amakuru (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)"

Hi, I'm sorry, but "There are more opposes than supports"? There will always be more opposes than supports for Ana Ivanovic. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: well, if there are always more opposes than supports, then that's a pretty good indication that editors in general don't think it's a good idea to move the page. As required when assessing WP:CONSENSUS, I have not just counted heads but examined the arguments too, but it's hard to make a case that either of the two points of view is emphatically right or emphatically wrong and in this case the oppose arguments appeared somewhat stronger. Ivanovic is a former world no. 1 tennis player, with vast reams of English-language coverage, and overwhelmingly, it does not use the diacritic. Her own usage doesn't make it clear that she uses one when writing in English either. Of course it wouldn't really be emphatically wrong to use the diacritic, since it features in the original Serbian when written in Latin alphabet. But like Novak Djokovic, you can't really ignore common usage to that extent. And in the end, it's up to individual editors to give their reasoned arguments, which they did. cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: as I noted at the time, IAR vs MOS vs CONSENSUS. Time to drop the stick for another year or two. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Amakuru, thanks for taking the trouble to reply. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).

Administrator changes

Eddie891

Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the minimum length for site ban discussions was increased to 72 hours, up from 24.
• A request for comment is ongoing to determine whether paid editors must or should use the articles for creation process.
• A request for comment is open to resolve inconsistencies between the draftification and alternative to deletion processes.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2020 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
• An open request for comment asks whether active Arbitrators may serve on the Trust and Safety Case Review Committee or Ombudsman commission.

---

Its interesting the point about the fact that we don't have articles or redirects for most "real" places, I'm assuming the point you made about us not having "Murder of X" articles or redirects was a reference to my point regarding Murder in England? I would note that the point about not having other articles/redirects might actually show that we need to change this (WP:OTHERSTUFF) but in this case you (and others) made a good point that the film gets more views than the entire crime article. If I look at the other titled with the prefix "Murder in" a quick look shows things like Murder in Amsterdam, Murder in Canton and Murder in Soho (and several others and yes Murder in London is also a red link) that correspond to real locations but go to media (not counting things like Murder in Tarsis where Tarsis doesn't exist) the 1st has a hatnote to the general meaning but the other 2 don't. Then there are a few redirects such as Murder in Beverly Hills, Murder in New Hampshire (which has only had 47 views[[2]] from its created over 2 years ago) and Murder in Manhattan that also redirect to media (again with no hatnotes). No sign of things like Murder in Ohio and Murder in Massachusetts etc. There is also Murder in the Second Degree that is a DIFFCAPS case to Murder in the second degree. The only redirects that I can see that do go to the general meaning are Murder in Canada and Murder in the United States which do not see many views[[3]]. I think the main counter point is that when you put a term into the search box that doesn't have an exact match (or none at all) you get presented with search results (or taken to the correct capitalization[4]) while all this is lost of there's an article. For example if I search for "Murder in England" I get taken to the search results at the 1st results are Murder in English law, Murder of Sarah Payne and Murder. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

—valereee (talk) 12:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

September

Thank you for another good one! - Every once in a while, I have a TFA, happy that it was also a tribute to Brian, in great collaboration, fine Main page, and see also. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks, Gerda, although in fact this one was penned mostly by our mutual friend TRM, with just a bit of input from myself for a few paragraphs. I learned the art and created 2017 EFL Trophy Final as a solo job, which reminds me I should DYK that before the week is out. Happy to see Mr Boulton's work at TFA too. I think one of my Rwandan topics is coming up there on 1 October, so watch this space!  — Amakuru (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I watch the TFA daily, DYK? I plan to nominate Carmen next, of Brian's TFAs to be rerun. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Twin Cities protests. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 5#Twin Cities protests until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Twin Cities riots. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 5#Twin Cities riots until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Please don't disrupt the articles. You have a long history of reverting the consensuses that others arrive at. (E.g. because "Ainuic" is not a common word, you should be able to do whatever you want instead.) The consensus is clearly against you, as the only non-IP in favor of the merge. If you want to change the names, that's fine -- I'd be fine with "Ainu language" for the Hokkaido language and "Ainu languages" for the family. But conflating the language with the family is POV and disruptive. — kwami (talk) 03:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Reply is here.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

This is to let you know that the Rwandan Civil War article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 1, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 1, 2020, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

October

Thank you for the article, done in collaboration, saying "Fundamentally, although the article may appear to give Habyarimana and the Hutu a "harder time" than the other side, that's only because all the sources I used had a similar tone. Ultimately, this war was the precursor to one of the worst mass genocides of the 20th century and I don't think it's necessarily an NPOV violation to use the language from sources that describes that."! - Tough to write, I bet. You earned rich harvest. Nice to share the page with a singer (DYK) and a minister of work (ITN), and (reviewed) a holocaust survivor and a quirky lane. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: thank you very much! It certainly is a fantastic feeling having a TFA up on the main page... only my fourth so far, but I have quite a few things in flight so hopefully there will be a few more coming in the next year or two. As for the subject matter, it is indeed incredibly difficult to strike the right tone, not least because the volume of written work is so much less for this than it would be for equivalent European topics. It's quite disconcerting when you think you've covered all the bases and presented everything available, only to find that new books have been published giving a fundamentally different viewpoint or highlighting aspects which weren't mentioned in any previous book. Only last month I got a note here (see the "About the Rwandan Revolution" section above) that's made me realise I've probably been underplaying the importance of the Tutsi massacres of 1962-63, based on recent sources. Not to mention having to factor in and balance strong viewpoints from other editors and Rwandans themselves, which may lean in one direction or the other, as to which side is "right" and which is "wrong". Thankfully nobody has yet attempted to characterise the Hutu extremists as good guys though, so at least there's that! All the best to you anyway, and as always I'm glad to see your fantastic musical work at DYK - for a whole day now. Our orchestra met for the first time since March this week, for a playthrough of Symphony No. 3 (Beethoven) in a room with all the doors and windows opened and every player spaced 2m apart from each other! Strange times.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing. - Subject changing: I just began Katrin Lea Tag (stress on "began", and already an edit conflict) because she was named scenic designer of the year, - translating from de, where three "Sources" were given, one Operabase which isn't working, and two dead links, - I saw at least four of her works (three nights) and was always fascinated. - Symphony: great that you could play! Will listen - first symphony concert since March - to Anna Tifu and the orchestra that made Der Ring in Minden possible on Saturday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

... who is featured on DYK today, see? - enchanting, said a critic about the Mendelssohn on 3 October, - this video is older, and the YT in the article comes with a Bach encore, as she played for us! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

16 October memories --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Since you relisted it on September 1, the discussion has attracted only one !vote, with the rest being accusations and replies to accusations. It seems that what was to be said on the naming rationale, has already been said. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I've asked Sceptre (talk · contribs) to revert the move of Glenn Martin (coach) because, with only 2 commenters, there was clearly no consensus for a move in my opinion, especially a move to one of the alternative titles with absolutely no explanation by the closer. I'm awaiting a reply at User talk:Sceptre and may consider a move review, depending on the reply. Would you consider temporarily withdrawing your RM at Talk:Abe Martin (American football) (which I would oppose) until this is straightened out? Thanks. Station1 (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Station1: OK, I've temporarily withdrawn the RM as you suggest, to avoid muddying the waters further. FYI I am currently leaning towards thinking the moves were probably sensible though at the moment, for the reasons I mentioned to Roman Spinner. Even though I initially agreed with you... But let's see what happens anyway. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Station1 (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello! As I said on the talk page, I'm not averse to any method of disambiguating the two coaches; I went with ", Illinois" randomly as I did see there was a general consensus on that move request for such a double disambiguation. I wouldn't object to a second RM being instantly opened to decide which double disambiguation is favoured. Sceptre (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Sceptre: thanks for replying. I'm still not sure how you found general consensus for "double disambiguation" with only two comments, one of which opposed that. But in any case, do I understand correctly that you prefer not to reopen that RM in order to further develop consensus there? If so, it might make sense for Amakuru to reopen his RM at Talk:Abe Martin (American football). - Station1 (talk) 05:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your work on this. What a great article. —  AjaxSmack  21:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@AjaxSmack: thanks for your kind comment, and I'm glad you enjoyed the article. I started writing this a while back, as a road I've been familiar with since my childhood, but I had no idea it had such an interesting and varied history until I started delving into the sources. I'll be hopefully tidying up some of the sections in the coming weeks and pushing it on to GA/FA.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

When I am selecting POTD I usually use this list which is organised by age. The first three pages are dominated by banknotes, and it would be nice to reduce this a bit. So, how many images do you think it is reasonable to list (with a random selection) at a time? On 28 September I have listed US silver certificates Template:POTD/2020-09-28, and there are five in the 1886 series. I could expand this by adding six in the 1878/80 series, making eleven in all. Subsequent series were smaller size banknotes. There are several other series that could be added but forty-seven images on one day seems excessive. What do you think? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: this is a very good question, and I don't have a definitive answer for you I'm afraid. I think when I was scheduling I didn't run any that had more than about seven or eight in the same set, so the issue didn't arise. More generally, with sets, I tried to assess whether the images would be sufficiently different from each other to warrant separate featuring. With something like Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bath Abbey Set, they are all being featured on POTD separately. Similarly, I decided to feature the many images pertaining to Urania's Mirror, such as those at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Throughout the night, &c, separately even if that means bolding the same article multiple times. whereas bank notes or coins, which are numerous and similar, tend to be featured together. I think you're right that including 47 on the same day would be overkill, so perhaps batch them up into some more sensible number and then just schedule the batches far apart in time so that readers don't get sick of them! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, you closed the AfD discussion for Baxter Leach as a merge to 1968 Memphis Sanitation Strike about a year ago. The discussion had very little participation and was relisted twice. I've been adding more sourcing and content to the article as I think there is enough material to merit a separate article (my latest revision) but it was reverted by another user citing the AfD discussion and I don't want to get into an edit war. Would you be willing to reconsider your decision?Citing (talk) 02:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, could you help us here? A new user, TheZoomTorah, has reverted three other editors' edits three times. By the message he just left me at Talk:Beth midrash, he is unfamiliar with Wikipedia style and policy. Are you able to invoke the 3RR rule on his talk page, or otherwise help out here? (The editor who left notices on the user's talk page is not an admin.) Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Yoninah Please discuss, not lecture. I'm your friend , trying to make wikipedia a better place. As is clearly stated here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#News_organizations "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." As such matzav.com is a reliable source on what the creators of said app have said. The link was added because it may be of interest to a reader in this context, though i can see why you disagree. Why did you leave the link to yeshiva.co on the same page? I assume you aren't affiliated with them? TheZoomTorah (talk) 15:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@TheZoomTorah: I have written a warning on your talk page, to indicate that you must not edit war at the page mentioned. Your edits have been reverted by two different editors, which means you should be discussing them, not repeatedly reverting to your favoured version of the article. I have no opinion on the issue at hand, but the most important thing is to discuss, not edit war. And the discussion should, in the first instance, be at Talk:Beth midrash, the discussion page for the article itself. If you revert the article again, then you are likely to receive a block. All the best to you, and I hope you and the other editors can resolve this amicably.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheZoomTorah (talk • contribs) 15:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey Amakuru. I've recently been working on improving the article on the Ikiza, the Burundian genocide of 1972. In the course of this I have acquired a book by the former US Ambassador to Burundi, Thomas Patrick Melady, entitled Burundi: The Tragic Years. In the work Melady brings up the killings of Tutsis during the Rwandan Revolution of 1962–1963, which he refers to as "selective genocide". He also writes, "It took weeks before reports of the Rwandise massacres received attention from the outside world. When they did, many world leaders echoed the Vatican Radio description of them as a genocide." The Rwandan Revolution article currently does not mention any allegations of a genocide against the Tutsis, though the disambiguation link at the top of the 1994 Rwandan genocide article offers to redirect the reader to the Rwandan Revolution article, as if to suggest they might be looking for that event under a genocide label. Seeing as you were the original GA nominator of the revolution article, could you help me verify whether or not a lot of people viewed the killing of Tutsis during the revolution as a genocide? If so, the article should be modified to reflect this, even if it is not the majority viewpoint. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: thank you for your comment, and that's a very interesting question. My sense from the sources I've worked with is that most of them do not use the term "genocide" to refer to anything in Rwanda other than the Rwandan genocide of 1994. The book "The Rwanda Crisis" by Gerard Prunier does not describe the massacres in the 50s and 60s as a genocide, and at the start of his chapter about the 1994 kilings he actually delves into the usage of the term, concluding that "such large-scale killings, even of very large size, as the punitive expeditions of the Duke of Alba in the Low Countries in the sixteenth century or the bombing of Dresden in the twentieth, unpleasant as they are, are not genocides because the purpose of a 'final solutions' is lacking". This matches the UN definition of "acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group", and I think Prunier's point is that during the earlier killings prior to 1994, the intention was not to wipe out the Tutsi as a whole. Whereas in 1994 they genuinely did wish to wipe them out completely. Similarly the other sources I used for the Rwandan Revolution such as Linden & Linden, do not refer to those killings as genocide. I think the only exception I've found in the literature is in Linda Melvern's book "Conspiracy to Murder", whose opening chapter is called "Genocides" and details all of the known cases of killings during the Hutu regimes as well as the 1972 Burundi massacres under that umbrella term. I think this may be in part an attempt to "retrofit" the terminology from 1994 back to previous events, and also Melvern's book is maybe not as serious a work as others, she being a journalist rather than a historian. As such, I tended to regard that as WP:FRINGE when I was compiling the revolution article which is why I detailed the killings without using the term. So I'd be hesitant to change that situation here, except perhaps for one note or something if appropriate. Unless you think there's lots of evidence of mainstream usage to the contrary! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

It appears my timing (and that of Melady's) was a little off; the locus of the dispute over genocide concerns stems from the 1963/1964 Tutsi exile rebellion and the Rwandan government's suppression of it, not the revolution itself. This page in Timothy J. Stapleton's book on genocide in Africa probably presents the best discussion of these events as possible genocide. These were indeed serious accusations, and even Stapleton himself concludes that the Rwandan government's actions would have qualified as genocide under UN definitions (Stapleton is no pushover, he's a professor of history in Canada and has written several books on African military history). Perhaps we need a standalone article on the 1963/1964 event? -Indy beetle (talk) 11:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

As a counter point, historian Deborah Mayersen takes the position that the 1964 repression was not genocide (see here). -Indy beetle (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

More interesting pieces on this event: Rwandan president's mysterious comment on "Who is genocide?" Academic makes comment about the killings as "genocidal event". Sorry for dumping these all here, I just want to have them in one place so we don't forget! -Indy beetle (talk) 12:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: thanks for the updates, that's very useful. It's quite a strange coincidence actually, but I was thinking literally this morning, before you contacted me, about circling back to the revolution article, after a hiatus of around four years, as well as maybe a longer term aim of bringing History of Rwanda up to GA/FA. With that in mind I've booked myself a desk at the British Library for next week, to do some more research into the various books on the subject. And since your comment, whilst searching for those searches, I found this: [5] which also backs up the point that the 1963 events could be considered acts of genocide. So I think that yes, we could expand the aftermath section of Rwandan Revolution to mention that some sources have called 1963 a genocide (whilst taking care not to state that in Wikipedia's voice, because unlike 1994 it is not a universally held view). Subsequent articles such as Rwandan Civil War and Rwandan genocide could also have a note added to their background sections to that effect. And also yes, the events themselves would appear to merit an article separate from the revolution of a few year's earlier. Perhaps a single article covering the Inyenzi attacks, the "genocide" of 1963 and the refugee exodus would be in order? Anyway, if there are any other books that you have in mind that may be useful starting points then if you let me know by the end of today I can add them to my reading list for the library next week. Cheers!  — Amakuru (talk) 12:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 06:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Hi, this well meaning but obviously non-Wikipedia-knowledgeable IP keeps adding a bulky quote to the lead of this article and I keep removing it. I don't want to get into an edit war, but his edits are unconstructive. Can you help here? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).

Administrator changes

Ajpolino • LuK3

Jackmcbarn

Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM

There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely 1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created.

Technical news

• The filter log now provides links to view diffs of deleted revisions (phab:T261630).

Arbitration

• The 2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place from September 27th to October 7th.
• Following a request for comment, sitting Committee members may not serve on either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee. The Arbitration Committee passed a motion implementing those results into their procedures.

Miscellaneous

• The Universal Code of Conduct draft is open for community review and comment until October 6th, 2020.
• Office actions may now be appealed to the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee.

---

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rwandan Civil War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Argus.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Spencer: many thanks! It's nice to have the story back up there again. And sometimes the easiest solution is to just go and fix up the issues yourself  — Amakuru (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of POTD is not clearly defined, nor are the rules set out to any great extent, but the guidelines are here. They include the advice to promote the oldest featured images in preference to the newest ones. I think POTD's objective is to display images that the English language Wikipedia has chosen as "featured" quality. The image has to be included on the page of the bolded article. I think the image should be the focus of POTD.

There is a page that I think Amakuru created that lists images that are ineligible for POTD for various reasons. An image rejected because the article is a stub is a challenge to expand the article, and I am happy to do this if the topic is not too boring. I enjoy selecting and writing blurbs for POTD because it brings me in contact with such a wide range of articles, some of which need improving before being fit to link from the main page. I have been doing this for about a year, but other people can, and sometimes do, create nominations, and even write blurbs! @Brandmeister, Khajidha, The Rambling Man, Floquenbeam, and Colin Douglas Howell: Pinging the editors who commented on the "errors" page about my sawfly/Eucalyptus image caption, for their views. I thought the caption linked some interesting information on herbivory with an outstanding image. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

If we have to contrive a link between a featured picture and a tangentially linked article, it shouldn't run. This is an encyclopedia, Commons is a different project. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: just on a point of order, the "unused image" page was not created by me - it has existed since 2009, long before I was involved with POTD. And the entry in question was added in 2009 by Howcheng, on the grounds that the species wasn't identified and no context was supplied in the sole linked article as to their relevance to the eucalyptus. There are situations where it's fine to "rescue" an older FP from that list, particularly if you've addressed the issues that led to it being included there in the first place - for example, if I destubbed something then I would just run it and that's fine. But in general, images were added there for good reason and the POTD pool should be chosen from those that haven't yet run and are not included on that list. If you think something has been listed there in error then discussing at a venue like Talk:Main page and forming consensus would IMHO be the best way forward rather than unilaterally overriding it. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020 New Caledonian independence referendum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liberation.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Please check out the List of fugitives from justice who are no longer sought that I created. I could really use some help adding people to the list, do you think that you could help me out? I have been able to get almost no help and would be very thankful to get some help. If you are unable to help then please show me where I could perhaps get help. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi!

In the article of Karuruma smelter, under the section Company history under NMC Metallurgie, I find the sentences "Five years after the privatisation, a complete technical and financial audit has been conducted by the Privatisation to see if the conditions of the contract were respected by both parties. It has been decided between the parties, that Phoenix Metal haven't any more obligation. Phoenix Metal has promised to keep in mind smelting and will do a special effort to restart the smelter at first opportunity." a little confusing. Since you have lived in Rwanda and know Rwandan sources better than I do, can you fix the wording so that it correctly communicates the message? Thanks!Cysj1024 (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, do you have time to promote one or two preps to the queue? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Yoninah: thanks for the message and yes, happy to do that - I've promoted two of them. Sorry, I've not been mucking in as much as usual recentaly! Will run the checks tomorrow hopefully. All the best  — Amakuru (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I knew I could count on you. Thanks! Yoninah (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).

Guideline and policy news

• Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet, to be logged at WP:GS/PAGEANT.

Technical news

• Sysops will once again be able to view the deleted history of JS/CSS pages; this was restricted to interface administrators when that group was introduced.
• Twinkle's block module now includes the ability to note the specific case when applying a discretionary sanctions block and/or template.
• Sysops will be able to use Special:CreateLocalAccount to create a local account for a global user that is prevented from auto-creation locally (such as by a filter or range block). Administrators that are not sure if such a creation is appropriate should contact a checkuser.

Arbitration

• The 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections process has begun. Eligible editors will be able to nominate themselves as candidates from November 8 through November 17. The voting period will run from November 23 through December 6.
• The Anti-harassment RfC has concluded with a summary of the feedback provided.

Miscellaneous

• A reminder that standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. (American Politics 2 Arbitration case).

---

Hi there Amakuru,

I saw that you reverted my move of Typhoon Goni. There are several reasons why this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.

• Goni was the strongest landfalling tropical cyclone anywhere in the world.
• Goni likely cause hundreds of deaths
• Goni was one of the strongest tropical cyclones in the world
• Goni would likely be retired due to its rarity and destruction.

Goni 2015 did cause 70+ deaths and $1 billion of damage, it is likely nowhere as destructive or notable as Goni 2020. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@Destroyeraa: well I suggest you start a WP:RM discussion then. I'm somewhat amazed that you would think that 70+ deaths and $1 billion of damage does not rate on the notability scale, even if the present event has somewhat more. In any case, at present the article gives the confirmed death toll as 16, which makes the current one on present evidence less harmful than the 2015 one. It's slightly perplexing that the name wasn't retired given the extent of the 2015 damage, but perhaps the retirement system isn't used for these types of event. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I was about to start a RM discussion when I saw a CSD tag on a redirect from Jasper Deng requesting that the Typhoon Goni (2020) be moved to Typhoon Goni. It is surprising that the 2015 one didn't get retired, but the World Meteorological Organization decides retirement and they didn't retire it. I'll start a RM discussion. Thanks! ~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

This logic is ludicrous, Amakuru. Communications have not been reestablished to the hardest-hit regions by any means and 2020's storm has every reason to have had worse impacts. Please actually read the news... the death toll just increased to 20 per [6] and nothing suggests this is final at all.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: please take it to the RM page. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Beshogur (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The 2020 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round going down to the wire. Our new Champion is Lee Vilenski (submissions), the runner-up last year, who was closely followed by Gog the Mild (submissions). In the final round, Lee achieved 4 FAs and 30 GAs, mostly on cue sport topics, while Gog achieved 3 FAs and 15 GAs, mostly on important battles and wars, which earned him a high number of bonus points. The Rambling Man (submissions) was in third place with 4 FAs and 8 GAs on football topics, with Epicgenius (submissions) close behind with 19 GAs and 16 DYK's, his interest being the buildings of New York.

The other finalists were Hog Farm (submissions), HaEr48 (submissions), Harrias (submissions) and Bloom6132 (submissions). The final round was very productive, and besides 15 FAs, contestants achieved 75 FAC reviews, 88 GAs and 108 GAN reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!

All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.

• Gog the Mild (submissions) wins the featured article prize, for a total of 14 FAs during the course of the competition.
• Bloom6132 (submissions) win the featured list prize, for 5 FLs in round 4.
• Rhododendrites (submissions) wins the featured picture prize, for 3 FPs in round 3 and 5 overall.
• Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the featured article reviewer prize, for 23 FAC reviews in round 5.
• Epicgenius (submissions) wins the good article prize, for 45 GAs in round 2 and 113 overall.
• MPJ-DK (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 33 articles in good topics in round 2.
• The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the good article reviewer prize, for 100 good article reviews in round 2.
• Epicgenius (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 22 Did you know articles in round 4 and 94 overall.
• Bloom6132 (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 63 In the news articles in round 4 and 136 overall.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2021 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on Robert Fisk, which fixes exactly what initially made me uneasy. I've made a few more tweaks. I'd welcome if you could review these to make sure you think they are all fair, given that the article is now live-linked from the front page. (Which I am also glad about). Thank you so much for your work on this. Jheald (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Amakuru, I'm disappointed in you and troubled by what seemed a mean-spirited revert. In U.S. English, U.S. is indeed the overwhelmingly prevalent style. It's the Brits and their linguistic fellow-travelers who use US to denote the United States.
As noted before, US is a word while UK is not. Hence the abbreviation style difference. I say this as one who has 40-some years' experience as a writer and editor. – Sca (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sca: thanks for your message, and for my part I'm disappointed that you seem to think my edit here "mean-spirited". I'm not doubting your expertise and obviously, as an American and a writer too, you have more experience in US style and English prose that I do. The thing here, though, is that our manual of style lays out the conventions on this in black and white, over at MOS:US. It is clear from that, that using US is acceptable, even in North American English. And, indeed, one would expect US to end up slightly more prevalent than "U.S." simply because the guidelines says not to mix styles, thus "The U.S. and the UK" is not permitted.

So, to clarify the precise issue in question, although it would have been fine for it to say "U.S." were it originally written that way, it was also fine to write it "US", and we shouldn't in general switch between different acceptable versions of a styles. Hence I think my revert was justified, and indeed although obviously there was good faith all around, the original edit should not have been made.

If you think there is a problem with the MOS guideline itself, then the place to bring that up would be Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style. There are prior recent discussions on the issue here and here. Until and unless there is a change in that guideline though, I would respectfully ask you not to continue reporting issues such as this at ERRORS. Thanks, and I hope you're having a pleasant weekend.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I maintain that U.S. is not wrong in this instance, and if you're suggesting that it is wrong, I have to say you're wrong.
Using U.S. in U.S.-content items would be a polite gesture toward (North) American readers, who constitute a large share of the English-language Wikipedia audience, and who are mostly accustomed to U.S. as the abbreviation.
Flexibility on this issue would be more congenial and collegial than unbending adherence to a purportedly sacrosanct "Manual of Style." In this case, changing U.S. back to US was quite unnecessary. And annoying. – Sca (talk) 16:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sca: I'm not saying "U.S." is wrong - it isn't. But, per MOS:US, "US" isn't wrong either, and that was the variant that was initially used in the "On this day" entry in question. Per MOS:STYLERET, "The Arbitration Committee has expressed the principle that "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." Clearly in this case, there was no "substantial reason" to change from US to U.S., it was simply your opinion that the latter is better, an opinion which is not borne out by MOS:US. So, given that the change which you proposed was prohibited by the above-mentioned Arbcom opinion, and there was no other reason for it to have been made, it was correct for me to revert it. I'm happy to be congenial and collegial, but my personal opinion is we should in general stick to what the MOS says, if only because it generally removes the need to have disagreements of the sort we're having here! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

U.S. isn't "better," it's just what is the prevailing usage in U.S. English. That's not "my opinion," it's fact. Thus, when appropriate to the textual context, it's what is correct. Re "not borne out by MOS:US," you don't seem to understand that it's borne out by prevailing usage, and that Wiki's MOS:US just might be wrong on this point. But I'm not setting foot in that briar patch. – Sca (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

PS: Please forgive me for pointing out that as a UK resident (of Rwandan origin), you might be somewhat POV on this question. I suggest you recuse yourself from these U.S./US incidents. Yes, I know you could assert the same about me as a U.S. native, but I'm not an administrator can can't make this sort of change myself.
Please understand that I have nothing against Britons and have enjoyed several UK visits very much. Nor of course do I have anything against Rwandans (never been to that country). I absolutely believe in multiculturalism and total equality. All the best. – Sca (talk) 19:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sca: as I've already said, this has nothing to do with me or my location, I'm purely following the Manual of Style. And the guideline to which I've already pointed you above, was determined through a consensus of editors, many of whom were US citizens like yourself. I wasn't involved in its formulation at all. So if you have an issue, raise it there. But until you gain consensus to change it, then that remains the accepted style that we should be using on Wikipedia, including the injunction against making changes from one accepted style variant to another. So I will not be recusing from implementing our style guidelines on the main page. If you have a problem with that, or you think I am acting out of line in some way, then I suggest you raise a discussion at WP:AN and I'll be happy to hear what others think of the matter. Thanks, and good evening to you. Ps - I'm glad you enjoyed your visits to the UK, I have also had several very enjoyable trips to the States too. Florida, Washington, New York, Connecticut and New Jersey are my five collected states so far, but I hope to add more. If you ever get the chance to visit Rwanda then I can recommend it. The mountainous landscape and volcanoes are breathtaking, as is visiting the mountain gorillas. The latter is not cheap though, around $1000 US the part time I checked, just for the permit!  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

My son has been to Ghana and Malawi, my daughter to Mali. – Sca (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sca: forgive my intrusion here (and you too Amakuru) but for Wikipedia (not AP, not The New York Times, not Reuters etc etc) we follow the WP:MOS. I think I've pointed it out to you a few times at WP:ERRORS. There's no "absolute" right/wrong and in the scene set by subjectivity, we (here) fall back on the Manual of Style. For what it's worth, I think Amakuru's changes were perfectly apt. I also think that given your long-standing disagreements with MOS, you should seek to adjust the most important failings (as you see) over at the talk page. As for visiting Rwanda, I've never been able to do that, however I was lucky enough to visit the gorillas which Amakuru has described, just over the border in Uganda. In 2006 it was around $300 for a permit but I have never been in so much awe as I was when sitting metres (meters) away from a family of gorillas for around twenty minutes. Inspiring. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Gorillas are intriguing primates, all right.
My favorite thing in the UK was the British Museum, but in a different way I found the Imperial War Museum fascinating. But we digress. – Sca (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I think until you're within a few metres of the gorillas, it's very Attenborough. When you're there, it's unreal. I cried actual human tears. British Museum is a place I'd visit at every opportunity. My favourite was the Rosetta Stone. P.S. Digression is allowed, nay, encouraged, especially in light of collegiate understanding... The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh yes, very much so. Digress away. I also find the British museum fascinating, although several countries around the world think its collection was looted from them! Re animals, I also saw wild chimps in Rwanda, in the Nyungwe Forest, although despite being closer cousins to mankind they're actually less spectacular because you don't get up close and personal as you do with the mountain gorilla troops,they're just leaping around in the trees above. During my gorilla visit the guide strayed too close to the Silverback at one point, and he got grabbed by the hood of his coat. He curled up in a ball and started making grunting noises, which he later told us was "gorilla language" for "I submit to you". The Silverback then let him go.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

At the risk of wearing out my welcome here, I want to thank Amaraku for telling some about himself on his user page. – Sca (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Hi, since Cwmhiraeth built this set, she is unable to promote it. Will you do the honors? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 11:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@Yoninah: Oh yes, I got Cwmhiraeth's ping this morning but hadn't had time to do it yet. I will be able to in around 1 hour. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Fancy a co-nom at FAC? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: yes, definitely a good plan to get it up there, although I think I probably wouldn't be allowed to do so right now, as I still have 2017 EFL Trophy Final up there at FAC. You probably know the rules better than I do, but isn't it one at a time per editor? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

One solo and one co-nom allowed simultaneously... The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh OK yes, I could have read that on the FAC page, duh. Let's have at it then. I can muck in and help fix up the issues as we go.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Will take a look tomorrow assuming that "work" thing doesn't get in the way too much! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: - I've gone ahead and started the nom, over at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2018 EFL League Two play-off Final/archive1. Hope that's OK! If you want to add anything to the blurb, then feel free. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I saw that, cheeky monkey. All good. Let's see what the FAC gods throw our way. Cheers, stay safe. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!)

Hi, I queued him up in the image protection queue, but then realised that he’s in his NZ colours, so took him out. Do you think people will object? There’s a picture of the winning captain, but in a DJ. Again, not ideal. What do you reckon? Stephen 09:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Stephen, and thanks for the message. I had actually intended to come back and upload a cropped version of Boult, which I have now done - at File:Trent Boult cropped.png. I also retouched it slightly to try to reduce the contrast between the very dark region under his cap, and the rest of his face. With most of the shirt removed, the only identifiable Kiwi symbol is the one on his cap. I think that would be OK myself, what do you reckon?  — Amakuru (talk) 11:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

As you’ve put the effort in you should give it a go. Is there any chance you could prepare a tighter crop of Sharma as a backup? Stephen 11:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Stephen: OK, good idea. I have done that - see File:Rohit Sharma tight crop.png. I have published the pic of Trent on to ITN already. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:11, 11 November 2020 (UTC)