Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

To editor Estar8806: thank you so very much for your nice words and cookie! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 16:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for closing the big RM here. I would request that you expand on what you believe were the strongest policy-based arguments on both sides that lead you to the no-consensus closure. For example, I did a source analysis on the issue, but it was late in the RM, few users commented on it, and one user potentially made it unreadable, so I'm curious if you took that into account or not. But there were other source analyses too, so I'm wondering how did you weight competing analyses. I'm asking these questions for the purpose of understanding " editors can strengthen their arguments, discover new ones" for a future RM. Also, when you mean "While support for such a title change appears to be growing" are you referring to a change to Israel-Gaza war or Gaza war? That clarification would help what should be the target of a future RM. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

As an example, you can see this RM resulted in no consensus, but the closer gave very specific directions for a future RM, which then resulted in a RM that actually yielded consensus. Such specific direction here would be helpful, thanks.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for coming to my talk page, editor VR! And please forgive me for being away as I've been very busy offline. Closing that interesting discussion was more of a pleasure than a chore. Part of the answer to your questions is within the discussion above, as other editors have also inquired about that closure. That editor's misplaced vote was a bit confusing but not so that your rationale was not coherent. And yes I did take it into account. In this case, "editors can strengthen their arguments, discover new ones" applies mostly to rebuttal arguments because both sides had their share of very strong rationales. As for the growing common-name support, as you know, "Gaza War" is a bit ambiguous, but both terms, "Gaza War" and "Israel-Gaza War" are growing, yet neither seems to have surpassed the term "Hamas" in this title and context. So I still recommend a customary waiting period of a few months before opening a fresh RM. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

No worries about the delay, we all get busy. The above is exactly why I'd like you to add more details to your closure statement. You said:

• "yes I did take it into account" in reference to this table that, on its face, would show Gaza war as more common than Israel-Hamas war
• " but both terms, "Gaza War" and "Israel-Gaza War" are growing, yet neither seems to have surpassed the term "Hamas" in this title and context"

Now it is entirely possible that my analysis was flawed, so a detailed closing statement would show why that is, and how I can alleviate those flaws in a future RM.

Further, it was also argued that WP:NDESC, not WP:COMMONNAME, was the more controlling policy in this case, which is why a lot of !votes focused less on common usage, and more accurate and neutral description. WP:NHC says "If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy." So I would like the closing statement to indicate which policy was more controlling and why.

Having all these details in the closing statement would immensely help in making a future RM result in some sort of consensus, which is what we should all be aiming for. Thanks again.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2024).

Administrator changes

• Crisco 1492

• Babajobu
• Daniel
• Elf
• Jayron32
• Thue
• Wugapodes

CheckUser changes

Maxim

Oversighter changes

Maxim

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion, the discussion-only period proposal that went for a trial to refine the requests for adminship (RfA) process has been discontinued.
• Following a request for comment, Administrator recall is adopted as a policy.

Technical news

• Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068

Arbitration

• RoySmith, Barkeep49 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2024 Arbitration Committee Elections. ThadeusOfNazereth and Dr vulpes are reserve commissioners.
• Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate from 3 November 2024 until 12 November 2024 to stand in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections.
• The Arbitration Committee is seeking volunteers for roles such as clerks, access to the COI queue, checkuser, and oversight.

Miscellaneous

• An unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in November 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

---

An editor has asked for a Move review of Israel-Hamas war. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (2talk) 11:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Gerda! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 01:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

The redirect Wikipedia:Redirect assimilation 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 November 22 § Wikipedia:Redirect assimilation until a consensus is reached. Trovatore (talk) 03:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The redirect WP:ASSIMILATION 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 November 22 § WP:ASSIMILATION until a consensus is reached. Trovatore (talk) 03:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Template:Editnotices/Page/Life Speaks to Me has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 08:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2024).

Administrator changes

• Ahecht
• DoubleGrazing
• Dr vulpes
• FOARP
• Peaceray
• Queen of Hearts
• Rsjaffe
• SD0001
• SilverLocust
• Sohom Datta
• ThadeusOfNazereth
• Voorts

• Ajpolino
• Fathoms Below
• Pppery
• Tamzin
• Worm That Turned

• Aervanath
• Christopher Sundita
• Dank
• Dennis Brown
• Dragons flight
• Fastily
• Graham87
• JaGa
• Kbh3rd
• Marine 69-71
• Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington
• Yamamoto Ichiro

Interface administrator changes

• SD0001
• Sohom Datta

Pppery

CheckUser changes

• Spicy
• TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RFC, the policy on restoration of adminship has been updated. All former administrators may now only regain the tools following a request at the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard within 5 years of their most recent admin action. Previously this applied only to administrators deysopped for inactivity.
• Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, T5, has been enacted. This applies to template subpages that are no longer used.

Technical news

• Technical volunteers can now register for the 2025 Wikimedia Hackathon, which will take place in Istanbul, Turkey. Application for travel and accommodation scholarships is open from November 12 to December 10, 2024.

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Yasuke (formerly titled Backlash to diversity and inclusion) has been closed.
• An arbitration case titled Palestine-Israel articles 5 has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 14 December.

---

Message sent by Baffle_gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC).

A tag has been placed on Template:World War II/doc requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

WP:T5

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

January 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Streak awards will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Template:Twenty20 leagues/doc requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

WP:T5 (template moved and then changed to use Template:navbox documentation)

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Paine. Thanks for your additions to the Wikipedia:Glossary. In the entry for WP:G#malplaced disambiguation page (added in rev. 1227250312), clicking the [[#base name|Foo]] link landed me at base name, which seemed surprising. Did you mean to add nowiki's around it? Either way, I am not sure I understand the relevance of that link; perhaps you could clarify the entry? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Mathglot, and welcome! The base name link is there to illustrate that the example title, "Foo", is a "base name" that redirects to a page where the base name is qualified with " (disambiguation)". The link was added to help editors, but if something should be done to make the text more clear, then please feel free to do so. Perhaps something like:

When an ambiguous [[#base name|base name]] page title, such as "Foo", redirects to a page named "Foo (disambiguation)", the Foo page is said to be "malplaced". In this case, Foo (disambiguation) should be moved to the Foo title. See Wikipedia:Malplaced disambiguation pages.

P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 17:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

To editor Mathglot: the text in the glossary for this entry has been clarified. I hope it is improved over its previous version. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 03:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps it is to some, but I find it confusing. For example, I see base name page title (1st sentence), and a Foo title (2nd); is this about pages that do, or don't have parenthetical disambiguation? If that is the case, I would just say that. If it's about something else, then what? Mathglot (talk) 03:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

To editor Mathglot: this is good, because we both want it to be clear for other editors. We can work on it here, and feel free to clarify any part of it. If I understand you correctly, the confusing part is my trying to equate "base name" with the Foo title but not doing so quite well enough. I do think it's important to use the "base name" term, because it's sometimes used when editors discuss dab pages and primary topics. Maybe the following is better?

When an ambiguous base name page title, such as "Foo", is a redirect to a target page titled "Foo (disambiguation)", there is no primary topic "Foo", and the Foo page is "malplaced". In this case, the Foo (disambiguation) page should be moved to the base name page title, Foo. See Wikipedia:Malplaced disambiguation pages.

P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 04:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

To me, that seems identical to this:

When an ambiguous page title, such as "Foo", is a redirect to a target page titled "Foo (disambiguation)", there is no primary topic "Foo", and the Foo page is "malplaced".

If it is identical, then base name is superfluous or meaningless (and it can't be the second); if they are not identical, in what way does this sentence differ from the previous one? If find the latter sentence understandable, and don't know what base name is contributing to the definition. But since, as you say, it appears to be specialized vocabulary used in discussions about disambiguation, maybe you should just leave it if it's meaningful to others, and it doesn't matter if I understand it or not. Mathglot (talk) 05:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

To editor Mathglot: I'm afraid I don't see "base name" as "superfluous or meaningless" or unnecessary. If it were those things, then it would not be in the glossary in the first place. It's an important enough term to be in the glossary, and it applies to "Foo" in the example, because "Foo" is a base name title. While it is unfortunate that you are confused by this usage, I think that we should find a way to use the term "base name" in this description and at the same time be sensitive to the fact that there are quite possibly others who would also be confused for the same reason. What exactly and precisely is confusing about calling a base name title, such as "Foo", exactly what it is – a "base name" title? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 12:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't doubt it has meaning and deserves a place in the glossary, I just don't see it in this case. However, the glossary doesn't need to be tailor-made to cater to my misunderstandings, and if it makes sense to you and most people, then that is good enough and it should remain, and I am content to just let this go. Thanks for taking the time to address my questions about it. Mathglot (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

It's my pleasure and thank you for clarifying! This entry is about malplaced dab pages. It is about how a non-base name title, such as "Foo (disambiguation)", should be moved to its base name if the base name redirects to the non-base name. I regret if, while it seems clear as a bell to me, it results in any amount of misunderstanding. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 05:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Template:Christmas/doc requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

WP:T5. Template changed to use better Template:Navbox documentation.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The actual pronunciation is Malaysian language (Bahasa Malaysia) not Malaysian Malay. Ahmad Shazlan (talk) 07:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello editor Ahmad Shazlan, and thank you for coming to my talk page! Looking at the article's talk page and especially at the move request I closed back in 2022, this seems to be a contentious issue, with some editors agreeing with you and some editors not agreeing with you. I suggest that you continue to discuss this issue with other involved editors on the language's talk page. I sincerely hope this helps. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 21:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Frank Mrvan (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RFC, Wikipedia:Notability (species) was adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.
• A request for comment is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.

Technical news

• The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.

Arbitration

• Following the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: CaptainEek, Daniel, Elli, KrakatoaKatie, Liz, Primefac, ScottishFinnishRadish, Theleekycauldron, Worm That Turned.

Miscellaneous

• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Sign up here to participate!

---

Thank you for creating Template:Infobox Chinese/Chinese/doc. Now, please expand your work with a section on usage. —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I've been meaning to get back to that previously low-priority chore. Now that you've come to my talk page with this (and thank you very much for that!) it's high time for me to do the research and find out that template's usage. I'll then add it to the /doc page. Thanks again, editor Anomalocaris ! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 06:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks you! I got impatient and added comments at Template talk:Infobox Chinese/Chinese#Better documentation please. —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Umm, did something change in the way move discussions are closed? This doesn't look like it was closed properly as far as adjusting the templates/etc. TiggerJay (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi editor Tiggerjay, and thank you for coming to my talk page! I've been using the {{Requested move/end}} template to close RMs for many years now. That's why it was created back around Christmas 2010. And the RMCD bot sees it as a proper close. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 00:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah yes, I do see that in closing instructions now, I have just rarely seen that actually performed in the majority of RM closures, so it was a surprise to me. Carry on! TiggerJay (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello! You have previously assisted with template edit requests for this project. Pinging you as there seems to be a few requests that have gone unanswered so far on this page. I'm not sure if you're able to assist, but thought I'd bring it to someone's attention who has worked on the project before! Thanks in advance. GauchoDude (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for coming to my talk page, editor GauchoDude! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 22:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Template:PTC (software company)/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. —⁠andrybak (talk) 13:04, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much, editor Andrybak, for the heads up! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 03:09, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I saw your edit repairing things after I moved the note up to the top. Thanks—I wasn't sure where best to put it.

Now, I'm not sure whether I'm asking the right person or not, but the reason I moved the note was that the one-line reply (something like Support per nom) was added out of sequence, immediately above the note and above all previous replies. My question as someone who hasn't had much involvement in move requests is whether it would have been OK for me, the nominator, to move the reply down to the bottom where it belongs. It could look like an attempt to move a positive reply to a more visually prominent position so as to influence things. On the other hand, it's not where it should be.

Any thoughts? Musiconeologist (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much, editor Musiconeologist, for coming to my talk page! Unless there is an absolute need for it, I find it best to leave the edits of other editors alone. The position of an opinion and rationale matters very little if any to the closer of a move request and to the outcome of the request. All we have is our words, nobody can see our facial expressions or other body language, which makes it more difficult to communicate, and often makes it more likely that we will be misunderstood. You are a wise person to be sensitive enough to even ask your question! It occurs to me that, having said the above, I moved your note box from the top of the request, and you may wonder why. Your note box conflicted with the RMCD bot, which then listed your proposition as a malformed request. I monitor those and fix them when needed. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 01:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I guessed it was something along those lines. I hoped I'd kept the note out of the way of anything that was handled automatically, so thanks for fixing it.

My reason for moving it was to try to avoid anyone else accidentally replying above it and pushing it down into the discussion.

So to avoid errors the request template needs to be directly after the level 2 heading, then? Musiconeologist (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I think the only exception to this is the {{Move review talk}} template, which is usually placed between the heading and the request template. I placed a comment (<!-- comment -->) just after your note box to lead editors to using the space below it. You can use that in the future if you need it. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 02:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't think of using an HTML comment, but saw you'd done it :-) Musiconeologist (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Happy to help! Paine  02:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Could you please explain why, despite an ongoing discussion about modifying the Białystok Municipal Stadium article, there is no template at the top indicating that such a discussion is taking place? As far as I recall, there has always been a template at the very top of the article that redirected to the discussion. I was under the impression that the previous discussion was closed at the beginning of January. Paradygmaty (talk) 12:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for coming to my talk page, editor Paradygmaty! That notice was removed by the RMCD bot probably because of the back and forth RM closures and page moves that have taken place. The notice has been restored. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 12:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. I simply assumed the discussion was concluded due to the lack of a template. At the same time, I would like to ask why we are reopening the discussion twice when the majority still supports the English name? Paradygmaty (talk) 12:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

It's my pleasure, editor Paradygmaty! If I were to guess, I would say that we have to remember that WP discussions are not based on how many !votes, but on how good the arguments are, the rationales, and I think that the opposers think that their arguments are policy-based, while supporting rationales are not as strong. I know it won't mean much, but that is a rare move request, a situation that I've hardly ever seen. Please just continue to keep your head and argue as well as you can without badgering. If you don't agree with the opposers, then maybe work to find even better arguments for the page move. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 15:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I will try to do my best :) greetings from Poland. Paradygmaty (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

At Talk:Lichtenberg, you added a note saying "the initial proposal, Lichtenburg → Lichtenburg, Berlin, has been moved here because the RMCD bot saw this as a malformed request." Did the bot really flag the RM? Did it flag it after my edits or before them? I'm not sure I understand what that's saying, and if I did something that confused the bot, I want to know so I can avoid the error in the future. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I monitor the malformed requests and found that RM listed there. The sensitive spots for the RMCD bot are the area between the header and the RM template, and the area where the current and new titles are listed visibly. The bot snags when the titles in the template don't exactly match the visible titles. Not to worry, editor BarrelProof, as I've seen so many different nuances that trigger the bot, nobody could foresee them all. The malformed requests list is compiled for good reason. Thank you very much for coming to my talk page! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 16:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt and helpful reply. I'll make sure to avoid doing unusual things in the "A → B" area of RMs in the future. I didn't know the bot paid attention to that. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Happy to help! Paine  20:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Could you go into some more detail on this consensus you found in favor of a move? 3 opposes and 3 supports is not totally bonkers to do a move when the supports are substantially more compelling, but you simply said "per consensus" which does not give me a lot to go on. (I think the very late-breaking COMMONALITY argument is somewhat weak here - that's used when there's a clear consensus term acceptable to both sides. I don't think "Catalogue" is the equivalent of "glasses". And if taken too far, COMMONALITY would completely defang ENGVAR.). SnowFire (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for coming, editor SnowFire, I was hoping you would. Not that RMs are just a numbers game as you know, but the above count should be 3 opposes and 4 supports when you count the proposer. Honestly sorry to have to make that correction. Fortunately, in this case the numbers have little to do with the consensus. That came about with the final rationale by editor Necrothesp, who made the strongest argument in that survey: Not really an ENGVAR issue, since "catalogue" is frequently used in American English as well. That effectively weakened the opposing arguments and gave the proposal its best perspective. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 01:49, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, I agree that RMs are not entirely a numbers game, and I'm pretty sure you've closed RMs on "my" side before when the numbers were close. But I do think that when things are close, the closer should make clear why they're doing this. If it was because of Necrothesp's !vote - fine, say so in the closing statement. Don't say "per consensus". (Also, this is more a SnowFire-pet-peeve, but "consensus" is a somewhat misused term at times IMO. I personally find the usage above highly frustrating of seemingly declaring others agree, when they don't. I don't agree.)

Above miscount was not intentional - Sushidude put his support out of chronological order. I knew 100% I was the first person to reply to this RM so did not notice his completely rationale-less support that was put in an unexpected spot - I was certainly including the nominator, but only counting down from beneath my oppose, as there shouldn't have been anything inbetween my !vote and the nomination. I don't think Sushidude's support is worth a whole lot without rationale.

You closed just 3 hours after Necrothesp's !vote which did not exactly give a lot of time to contest it. Anyway per above, I think COMMONALITY isn't meant to defang ENGVAR. Specifically, COMMONALITY is usually about the use of entirely different terms - the example is preferring "glasses" over "spectacles". It's not usually about different spellings of the same word when both spellings are clearly identifiable in intent - that kind of difference usually falls under the purview of ENGVAR. I'd have been happy to make this argument... had I had time to see it, but last I checked it was 3 opposes to nothing. I'd like to point out that you closed 4 days after relisting rather than 7 days after relisting.

At the end of the day, this doesn't matter that much, so it's not worth going to Move Review, but something to consider for closing future requested moves, perhaps. ENGVAR is one of the best ideas English Wikipedia had to reduce churn and arguments. It's okay to flip the usage occasionally, harmless, but we shouldn't set a precedent of setting it aside TOO casually. SnowFire (talk) 13:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your counsel! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 17:31, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2025).

Administrator changes

• Arcticocean
• Wugapodes

Euryalus

CheckUser changes

• Firefly
• L235

Oversighter changes

• Firefly
• Guerillero
• L235
• Moneytrees

Technical news

• Administrators can now nuke pages created by a user or IP address from the last 90 days, up from the initial 30 days. T380846
• A 'Recreated' tag will now be added to pages that were created with the same title as a page which was previously deleted and it can be used as a filter in Special:RecentChanges and Special:NewPages. T56145

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Palestine-Israel articles 5 has been closed.

---

I made an edit request in Module talk:Gridiron color and would like to request you to please take a look and add the Fishers Freight color scheme to the Module. MarqueesCalaway (talk) 13:32, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for coming to my talk page, editor MarqueesCalaway! We see this has already been done. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 06:05, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your edit to clean up the close of this recent RM.

I note that User:Drmies did not provide a proper WP:THREEOUTCOMES statement. It is unclear whether this is a "not moved" or "no consensus" outcome. I've left a note to this effect at User talk:Drmies. 162 etc. (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Happy to help! Paine  20:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Hmm I thought "The suggested moves are opposed" is very different from "no consensus". Drmies (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Template:Organized crime groups in New York City/doc requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

{{Db-t5}}

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

...to that travesty of a discussion. That ran across my bot's patrols, and my brain just hurt hard at the thought of dealing with it. Good move, as you've prompted a much better rebooted discussion. wbm1058 (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Happy to help! Paine  23:07, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Friend Andrewa, perhaps when you are able to find the time, the following has given me pause. I am now perplexed by the whole NAMECHANGES policy situation, and I will not attempt to close another similar RM until I can figure this out. Please help when you can. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 00:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Distressing indeed. A blatant and unprovoked personal attack didn't help I am sure. Looking at it... may take a little while as I am frantic IRL and it's now quite involved. Wikipedia is not perfect. Andrewa (talk) 10:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for that! Please, take your time. The problems challenges aren't going anywhere. I never seek perfection, just excellence. Thanks again, my friend! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 10:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Post move review summary thoughts about Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 July#Fairfield Metro station: Fairfield Metro station (RM) – overturned

I am compelled to wonder about how to go forward. What happened here is that a local consensus at RM was not sufficient to override the WP:NAMECHANGES article title policy, and yet another local consensus at MRV did override that policy and had the article moved to the new "official" name before it has become the WP:COMMONNAME as prescribed by the NAMECHANGES section of the policy. Was I not using "common sense", as at least one editor at MRV suggested? Well, that's done and in the past, so my question now must be: how should we go forward?

Should we ignore the plural "sources" that the NAMECHANGES policy requires? That policy requires "sources" that use the new name "routinely". When I closed that move request, there had been no – zero – independent sources given that used the new name routinely. There were several primary sources that noted the name change, and there were some secondary sources before the name change that announced there would be an expected name change, but there were no independent, secondary sources found after the name change that used the new name routinely. After I closed the RM, an editor was able to produce one independent source, patch.com, published the same day, 1 July 2024, that I closed the RM, that used the new name routinely. One independent, secondary source. To date, that is the only independent source that uses the new name routinely. Our policy says "sources". I've run into editors who think there should be 10 or 12 good, independent, secondary sources that use the new name routinely before that new name becomes the common name. In the past, I've been happy with 3 or 4 of those sources. Now I just don't know. The policy isn't specific as to the number of those sources needed, it just says "sources" – plural, more than one. Yet in this case, a page was moved to a new, official name based upon only one independent source that used the new name routinely.

I should also note my respect for WP:IAR, but I've always thought that to ignore a policy or guideline, and the community agreements that built them, requires very good reason. Nobody, not in the RM nor in the MRV, nobody gave a good reason to ignore the NAMECHANGES article title policy. Yet they did ignore it. So...

I don't know how we should go forward with move requests that have proposed a title change to a new, official name when there are no independent sources, or only one source, that uses the new name routinely, when there should be at the very least two "sources" as prescribed by the NAMECHANGES article title policy. Can anyone see this dilemma clearly and give me guidance as to how we should go forward?

After rereading [this other policy] about primary and secondary sources, maybe I was being too restrictive about using specifically secondary sources that used the new name routinely? I'm still at a loss to understand how to go forward. We are still supposed to give "due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions",^[1] aren't we?

One last thought... there is no way I would take this to the next level that would follow a MRV decision with which I disagree. Not my style. Worst comes to worst, I will just refrain from closing this type of RM and hope that whoever does close them will do a better job than I have done. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 00:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I took a look at that, although I haven't thoroughly reviewed it. Different people have different perspectives on these matters, and just as RM closures are sometimes not flawless, so are MRV closures. Although we should try to learn from these experiences, that includes learning that we shouldn't read too much into any one outcome, and the outcome for one question often doesn't matter so much in the long run. As long as we collectively end up producing a decent source of information that has some independence, we're doing something good together on average. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much for that! I'm almost over it, though I still leave those RM's to other closers. I'll be back up on the horse in no time. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:00, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

	The Technical Barnstar
	Hey! Thanks for the prompt response and support on the ICD9 template. Also, would you please check Template_talk:ICDO? I already corrected it on the Portuguese Wikipedia, but it seems the link is still broken here. Cheers! @Bemloko ᴬʰᵒʸ! ᵀᵃˡᵏ ᵗᵒ ᵐᵉ 18:19, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much, editor Bemloko! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:10, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors Annual Report Our 2024 Annual Report is now ready for review. Highlights: Introduction Membership news and election results Summary of Drives, Blitzes and the Requests page Closing words – Your Guild coordinators To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:37, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2025).

Administrator changes

• Jarry1250
• Lethe

CheckUser changes

• AmandaNP
• Drmies

Oversighter changes

AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is open to discuss whether AI-generated images (meaning those wholly created by generative AI, not human-created images modified with AI tools) should be banned from use in articles.
• A series of 22 mini-RFCs that double-checked consensus on some aspects and improved certain parts of the administrator elections process has been closed (see the summary of the changes).
• A request for comment is open to gain consensus on whether future administrator elections should be held.

Technical news

• A new filter has been added to the Special:Nuke tool, which allows administrators to filter for pages in a range of page sizes (in bytes). This allows, for example, deleting pages only of a certain size or below. T378488
• Non-administrators can now check which pages are able to be deleted using the Special:Nuke tool. T376378

Miscellaneous

• The 2025 appointees for the Ombuds commission are だ＊ぜ, Arcticocean, Ameisenigel, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, Galahad, Nehaoua, Renvoy, Revi C., RoySmith, Teles and Zafer as members, with Vermont serving as steward-observer.
• Following the 2025 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: 1234qwer1234qwer4, AramilFeraxa, Daniuu, KonstantinaG07, MdsShakil and XXBlackburnXx.

---

Hi, at your close you state: Now, we see below strong, P&G-based arguments in both camps ... I think you would agree that it is not sufficient to cite a link to P&G. For it to have weight, it should be established that the link cited is applicable and consistent with the spirit and intent of the P&G in the context of the matter being debated. Could you please indicate what P&G based arguments have been cited by each side and why these are "strong" in the context of this discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:36, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Cinderella157, thank you very much for coming to my talk page! Forgive me for taking so long; I've been thinking about this and I'm presently forming what I hope will be a good response for you. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 18:48, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

To editor Cinderella157: again, thank you for bringing your thoughts and question here. I'll do my best to give you a straight answer. I don't usually go into a less-than-terse description of a closure decision. However, you've taken the time to come to my talk page, so I am happy to get much more verbose than I'm used to. :>)

First of all, I read somewhere that "editors will often imply policy-based arguments without specifically citing them". This RM proposal begins this way with a nomination that cites no P&G, and yet "implies" NCCAPS, as well as CRITERIA and verifiability, the former for its first sentence and the latter for what reliable sources have to say on the matter. Fairly strong nom to support the page moves.

Next we see editor Tony in support of the moves and again inferring the verifiability policy. Hence a strong argument. After editor Cremastra closed and then reopened the RM, the requester, editor Gadfium, left an oppose that cited the PROPERNOUN guideline, which you soundly rebutted later. He also left food for thought about the very different meanings attached to "region" vs. "Region". I found that to shed light on the discussion, even later. Further opposition was then given by editor Randy Kryn, who agreed with the previous argument and strongly implied the P&G from a previous discussion.

We then come to your strong argument that cited LOWERCASE, NCCAPS and SIGNIFCAPS. Apropos and well-put. Editor Traumnovelle entered a weak support that was actually quite strong in terms of source inconsistencies and that sources usually drop the "region" or "Region" altogether.

That was followed by editor Hey man im josh's oppose, which implied PROPERNOUN and cited previous evidence presented. Strong argument IMHO because of his referral to P&G evidence already cited. Next we see support citing MOS:CAPS by editor Nurg (strong), and then a "weak" oppose that cited PROPERNOUN, COMMONNAME and CONSISTENT by editor ShakyIsles, which I thought was much stronger than he did. That was ensuingly followed by your strong rebuttal of CONSISTENT and PROPERNOUN, if not COMMONNAME.

All that was lastly followed by editor Turnagra's partial support for all but two of the proposals. His was a strong argument for the NATURAL dabbing of the lc "region". After redacting the final !vote, which violated one of the five pillars, I concluded that both sides were able to show good, strong reason for their opinions. Then I decided that while there was almost, almost, a "rough" consensus to move, that the persuasive arguments in both camps did not quite achieve consensus. So as the only opinion a closer is allowed to give, I saw no other possible outcome at this time. Having closed several RMs of this type, I can tell you that the nom, when he thinks he's right, will continue to improve Wikipedia by finding effective ways to defeat overcapitalization in article titles. Let me know if you have any further questions or you would like to see a different action taken, because as usual when I've decided a lack of consensus, I can be amenable to the wishes of other editors. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 22:09, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for you reply. I would make some observations. You note that PROPERNOUN has been thoroughly rebutted because it does no address how we (WP) determines what a proper noun is. This is left to elsewhere at MOS:CAPS and/or NCCAPS. Gadfium would propose that Region is a capitonym and should be capitalised here but the evidence they present shows mixed capitalisation and does not support their argument. As noted in rebuttal For Wellington, not even the government caps it: "The Local Government (Wellington region) Reorganisation Order 1989" - ie governments have a tendency to overcap per WP:SSF.

Randy relies on Gadfium. The 2014 RM was about using parenthetic disambiguation, which was defeated as UNNATURAL. Capitalisation was not a point of any significance in the discussion. Where HMIJ states, the capitalized version appears to be the intentional legal name of the regions, the evidence is actually contradictory. ShakyIsles also bases their argument on Gadfium. Most of the rest of their case essentially affirms that we should retain R|region as part of the article names. They would assert that all seven articles retain capitalisation on a perceived need to capitalise two of these aricles. They would refer to CONSISTENT as applying to capitalisation to support this but it is rebutted. Where Turnagra would argue against lowercasing for Aukland and Wellington I'd be happy for the capital to remain (noting that this would reduce consistency). They offer no substantive argument for this opinion, though one might infer it alludes to Gadfium.

To summarise, the comments by Turnagra and ShakyIsles address the need to retain region as disambiguation. They would reach different conclusions on this with respect to CONSISTENT, noting the weakness of CONSISTENT as a CRITERIA. However, this was not the premise of the move. Those that oppose the move do so on the argument by Gadfium, which is not supported by PROPERNOUN or the contradictory evidence offered. An assertion that CONSISTENCY applies to capitalisation is effectively rebutted. Those supporting the move cite prevailing P&G and evidence supporting lowercase IAW the P&G that is not effectively rebutted. I find it difficult to see strong, P&G-based arguments in both camps ... [emphasis added]. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:16, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Please allow that sometimes a valid difficulty to understand any given closure decision results from having a different perspective. You are someone who has given an editorial opinion in a discussion, someone who is invested in the outcome; I'm just someone who happened in and who is uninvested in the outcome. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 05:30, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

If I might paraphrase my initial question, what is the substance of the strong, P&G-based arguments to retain capitalisation that were sufficient to nearly balance the strong, P&G-based arguments to remove it? You would say: As is usual with a no-consensus outcome, editors can strengthen their rationales, discover new arguments, and try again in a few months to garner consensus to change these articles' titles. An understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments in this discussion is an important step toward this. Your point of perspective is reasonable; however, I offered my analysis to show why I find it difficult to see strong, P&G-based arguments in both camps ... You have apparently seen something that I haven't? Cinderella157 (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

You are a closer and I believe that gives you the perspective to even ask that question. Kudes! Yes, I think that is the case. I have done my objective level best to explain the close. It is hoped that you will continue to analyze it and find the weaknesses and strengths that I found in the survey. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:30, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, in this edit you added a PP permanent at the top of the talk page. I have never seen a permanent protection, so dont really know what it is. Is this common? The template appears to suggest that no edits are allowed, is that the case? Or is it more like the other PP in which the editor needs to be autoconfirmed? Was there a discussion of this change? Kindly ping me back when you respond. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:18, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi editor Jtbobwaysf, and thank you very much for coming to my talk page! You will probably see these notices more as editors add them to talk pages. They make it a little easier for editors who can't edit the subject pages themselves to request edits. In this case the page is semi-protected so editing is allowed by editors who are extended-confirmed, autoconfirmed and so on. The {{Permanently protected}} template has been around since 2006, so discussions about its usage probably began around then. Its usage started on talk pages of fully-protected pages, then for template-protected pages, and more recently the extended-confirmed protected and semi-protected pages were added to it. Hope this helps and thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 16:26, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review my closure review. After my asking, I realized what a tall order my request was. Your response was really a master class in how to address concerns, yet positively move forward toward improving these articles. Thanks so much for taking the time. Dw31415 (talk) 01:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

p.s. Happy Pi day Dw31415 (talk) 01:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much, editor Dw31415! And happy Pi Day to you, too! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 03:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Template:Alt-right footer/doc requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

db-t5

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for fixing the RM issues for places like Hornsby and Randwick and others! Unfortunately, the tags at the top of the article do not have a link, unfortunately; someone is going to have to fix those tags. Unfortunately; I am not good at doing that. Thank you Servite et contribuere (talk) 00:16, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

To editor Servite et contribuere: the link should have worked because I anchored the subheader to make sure the link would continue to work. Not a big deal, but for next time please remember that requested moves should have the start date in the subheader. It helps to keep track of the discussion. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 04:17, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Paine Ellsworth Thanks for letting me know to remember. I will try and remember that. I think I just get a bit too simple. Many requests I put out will probably be passed under only or primary topic criteria. But now I know for next time. I might edit the title when discussion closes (Particularly on RM that don't end up moving), just in case another attempt happens eventually. Also, you put in Vanchor instead of Anchor. Was that what you intended or was autocorrect being stupid? Anyways, I will try to remember to date it. Thank you Servite et contribuere (talk) 05:00, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

And thank you, editor Servite et contribuere, for your consideration! The "V" in "Vanchor" stands for "visible", so it results in a {{Visible anchor}} instead of the invisible one you get with the {{Anchor}} template. So yes, the "V" was intended so that "Requested move" would remain visible. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 05:25, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Just a heads up that the "correct closure templates" have been edited in the second half of 2024 to support dark mode. I usually subst, show changes, and copy back to avoid going out of sync. Anyway, thank you for removing {{atop}}. 216.58.25.209 (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up, editor IP216+! I use a different template that was also updated in 2024, but I don't think it was to support dark mode. I use {{Requested move/end}}, which is also allowed to be used. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 07:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

After further examination I see that the template I use does include RM top, so I have updated my template to the present rendition of RM top. Thanks again, editor IP216+! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 12:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

There is a new ongoing request for comment discussion, with the goal to solve the various disputes on weather-related articles (such as tornadoes or hurricanees) on how to best utilize damage estimates in the infobox. Your comments are highly-requested, as the result of this discussion will affect all weather-related articles. This notice is being sent to all editors who have recently edited weather event articles.

You can view and participate in the discussion here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#RFC - Weather Infobox Damages. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:23, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the notice, editor Weather Event Writer! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 01:36, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

The Supreme Court of the United States has never had a Twitter/X account, so the redirect at @SCOTUS@SCOTUS is fairly misleading. If you weren't already aware of that, would you like to WP:G7 it or do you still think that's a good redirect? – JensonSL (SilverLocust) 04:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, editor JensonSL, for coming to my talk page with this! Even though SCOTUS doesn't have an X account, there are some unaffiliated and similar entities that do, such as SCOTUS Updates and SCOTUSblog, so I think "@SCOTUS" is still a good search term. I've recategorized the redirect@SCOTUS as such. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 16:03, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Re this edit of yours: {{initiated}} states Replace DATE with the day the discussion was initiated in "DAY MONTH YEAR" format with the month as a word (example: 22 January 2014).

Is the usage in error, or the documentation? I also note that the discussion types provided do not seem to cover merge proposals. Paradoctor (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for coming to my talk page, editor Paradoctor! For years now editors have usually included the full time stamp to correctly order the close ones that are on the same day, so it's really no big deal. I've just grown accustomed over the years of including the full time stamp whenever I see it missing. As for types, the merges and the RfCs have the same duration color changes (the default), which is blue up to 30 days, then green up to 60 days, then red after 60 days. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 16:34, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I'll update the documentation, then. Paradoctor (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Spümcø. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. YborCityJohn (talk) 04:35, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

For posterity, it was an IP who actually added Viacom as an owner of Spümcø. Since the link to Viacom was to the dab page, I disambiguated it and left a welcome and notice on the IP's talk page. Note that the editor above did not leave a notice on the IP's talk page for actually adding the Viacom link. Why's everybody always pickin' on me?!  Paine  06:36, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Fixed, the IPv6 user now has the same vandalism warning that I've given to you. YborCityJohn (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Uncommonly astute, editor YborCityJohn, and thank you very much! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 01:59, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello kind editor. I was thinking about closing the Benzinga RfC, but even as I write this, I’m realizing that I should hold off and continue to observe. If I were to close it, I’d find that the one editor opposing GUNREL doesn’t have a sufficient argument. They argue that a case-by-case analysis can be used. However, as I read GUNREL, it does not prevent a case-by-case analysis it just raises the level of caution and corroborating sources that should be used. So thanks for letting me practice my thinking here on this page. Dw31415 (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

p.s. it was closed and the closer did a better job than I would have in quoting more from RS. I would have followed your example more on recapping the opposing argument. Thanks for listening to my thoughts. Dw31415 (talk) 23:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, editor Dw31415, and yet that was a sure case of obvious consensus that should not be listed at WP:CR. It's good that editor ActivelyDisinterested closed it, because after giving it this much time without closure, I was going to give it a "not done" due to cue ball one. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 08:33, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for that reply. I’m trying to learn more about this process. I can see this one is an easy close. I’m curious why it’s obvious from a consensus perspective. If I were involved, I would have asked if we could close it, but failing that, it seems to be better for uninvolved review when there is any dissent. Otherwise it seems like a slippery slope where even an 80/20 split would be considered obvious. I’m wondering if you could share any insights on why this one was obvious? Thanks and have a great day!! Dw31415 (talk) 13:15, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Ref. – There was minimum dissent with overwhelming support for one option. So the discussion easily met the Wikipedia definition of consensus. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:29, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Paine Elsworth removed a legitimate move review. the page Hostile government takeover was approved by ToadetteEdit but LettersandNumbers stripped the history of the page when he moved it back to draft status. It can now only be implied that the page was accepted because the accepted notification was removed from it's history after it was rejected by LettersandNumbers. There was also a member that outright lied about the history of the page and this information should not have been used to make that decision as it puts all pages in jeopardy. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 03:48, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi editor Cradleofcivilization and welcome to my talk page! WP:Move review requires that an entry be the result of a formal move request that has been closed. The whole idea of move review is for editors to read a requested move and either agree or disagree with the editor who closed the move request. In the case of Draft:Hostile Government Takeover, there was no formal move request, so there can be no move review. You should refrain from putting that article in mainspace until it has been looked at by draft article reviewers. See WP:DRAFT and WP:AFC for further guidance. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 04:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

an approved article article moved to draftspace isn't considered a move. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 04:27, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

It was obviously not approved according to Draft:Hostile Government Takeover. It was in fact declined and should not be in article namespace until and unless approved. Sorry, but those are the rules. You'll catch a lot more flies with honey. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 04:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Refs:

• Hostile government takeover
• Hostile Government Takeover
• Draft:Hostile government takeover
  • Draft talk:Hostile government takeover, speedied
• Draft:Hostile Government Takeover
• Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 April
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hostile government takeover

Regarding this close, I cannot understand why you think there was a near-consensus against the move. Neither in numerical terms, nor in terms of argumentation, does this reflect the discussion. Particularly this does not reflect the overwhelming weight of reliable sources using the word “war” to describe this conflict: a position generally recognised, albeit one side of the discussion wanted to dismiss any source that wasn’t academic (although the story did not, in my view, change at all when only academic sources were consulted). FOARP (talk) 06:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for coming to my talk page, editor FOARP! Well, checking my notes, I found the support args nearly equally split between the proposed title and other titles, most prominently Russia–Ukraine war, so that meant fewer supports that actually argued for the proposed title. This left the support ratio for the proposed title at about 68%, which some closers (not me) see as a "rough consensus" to not move. I see it as a clear lack of consensus, which could have been relisted, but since you listed at WP:CR and other editors also called for a closure at the very end of the survey, I went ahead and closed it. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

This is problematic analysis: I think only one of the “Russia-Ukraine War”/“Russo-Ukrainian War” !voters (who outnumbered the oppose !voters by 30 to 21) stated that they aren’t willing to accept the other version. Everyone else was fairly clear that they are willing to accept the other version, with or without disambiguation. The common point all of them argued in favour of was a title including the word “war” over the present title of “invasion”. If there was a consensus to be found in the discussion, it was for a title including “war”.

Additionally I would like to know how you assessed the discussion around sourcing which played a very major role in the discussion. Neither the close nor your response mentions this. FOARP (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

There were sources given by editor Cinderella157 and other opposers, as well, that had to be taken into account. And I was meticulous about separating the arguments out, so even when those who suggested another title but found either the current title or the proposed title also acceptable are accounted for, there was still no clear consensus seen in that discussion to either keep the current title or to change it. I have modified my closing statement to take your concerns about my specific findings into account. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 21:02, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Cinderella didn’t give any actual sources - she linked to Google Scholar searches and gave the raw count from the first page of the search. That approach should not have been weighted per our PAGs which specifically warn against it (I.e., WP:GOOGLELIMITS) as the Google algorithm often produces counts that are an order of magnitude or more off.

Did you weight Cinderella’s Google Hits algorithm counts equally to the NOW corpus analysis and similar sourcing cited by those who supported moving? FOARP (talk) 02:52, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I weighted all arguments appropriately. Allow that our perspectives are very different. I can see that you are not seeing what I have seen. Even with that, I find it difficult to accept that you are unable to be objective at a level that at least makes you aware that there was a lack of consensus in that RM survey – at the very least that no consensus was a reasonable enough decision. Hard to accept. I could be wrong. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 03:18, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

My point of view is this:

• I can see how someone might have reached the conclusion that the consensus wasn't sufficiently clear for a move to a specific title, though it clearly favoured "war" over "invasion" by at least 30-21 (there was one "split" comment that at least did not oppose the renaming, there was another comment where the editor in question said they thought such a move "Makes sense" - I haven't counted either of these as supports).
• I think the proper course in the case where the move target wasn't clear would have been a further discussion with a forced choice between a title including "war" (for example "Russo-Ukrainian war (2022-present)") and the status quo.
• I cannot see how your reached the conclusion that 68% of !voters favoured the status quo (I assume that's what you mean when you say "This left the support ratio for the proposed title at about 68%, which some closers (not me) see as a "rough consensus" to not move", if instead you mean the split was 68-42 in favour of moving, then this would be a consensus to move for most closers, but I don't think that's what you mean). I saw in the discussion that using certain automated tools to count the !votes resulted in a wildly inaccurate count (e.g., that there were 90+ !votes) - perhaps you used such a tool?
• You appear to have weighted Cinderella's argument inappropriately. Indeed you seem to have thought she cited sources, when she did not actually cite any specific source at all. Instead she cited raw counts of Google Hits of the kind that WP:GOOGLELIMITS says not to use.

Perspectives may differ, but numbers do not and there was not a 68% in that discussion, nor should Cinderella's Google Hits counts have been weighted as equivalent to the more detail analysis offered by others. Objectivity requires use of objective facts - and these are I think at least some of them.

I think the best move, if the move target is unclear, is re-opening to give those in favour of moving a chance to clarify whether they would accept a lowest-common-denominator move (e.g., "Russo-Ukrainian war (2022-present)", which is the title that the only !voter who supported moving but opposed "Russia-Ukraine war" supported. This would also address the objections of the oppose!voters to renaming "Russo-Ukrainian war", since this title would be disambiguated from that. FOARP (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that re-opening is the best move. First of all, you yourself requested a closure at WP:CR. Secondly, there were sources within editor Cinderella157's effort. It wasn't just a hit count. Thirdly, my research, which I spent a lot of time on, yielded (since you continue to allude to the numbers) 22 editors opposed and only 15 editors who directly supported your proposal. This went along with 9 marks for "Russia–Ukraine war" and 4 marks for other titles. That does not mean 50 editors and 50 votes, because some editors had more than one opinion. This was a particularly difficult move request to decide, and I really don't think that more time will yield a different outcome anytime soon. Sorry, and thanks again, but most importantly, it was you who wanted closure, and I find it less than straightforward that you are now here arguing for a reopen after all the work done to figure out the proper close! Your request has received a thorough and accurate closure. Again I suggest you wait a few months and then try again. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 17:22, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

So you literally discounted fully half of the support votes? OK. That’s clear. FOARP (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Actually no, as I said, as a straight count not all of the support votes were for the proposal, not all of the support votes were for "Russia–Ukraine war" AND the proposal, and not all the support votes were specifically for "war" instead of "invasion". And if all the support votes were to be counted strictly as "general support" for given or similar titles, there were still only 28 as opposed to the 22 oppose votes. Not a consensus by any discernment. So the !vote args notwithstanding, no matter how you shake it, or how long you shake it, a consensus has not fallen out of the tree and will not probably won't fall anytime soon. I'm truly sorry, because although I have no opinion on the matter, I know from reading your responses that you put a lot of work into this, too. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 18:14, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Like I said, I can see why a closer might reach a no-consensus close and it was one I was prepared for (for 100% preciseness I should point out this was not my proposal), but I think the original close was flawed. I am not intolerably dissatisfied with the amended close, but I would have really hoped that the closer would have tried to find a consensus if there was one to be had (and I think there just about was one) so as to avoid soaking up further editor time in what is almost certain to be a largely a re-run in a few months time. But here we are. FOARP (talk) 07:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2025).

Administrator changes

• Giraffer
• Goldsztajn

Dennis Brown

• Cyclonebiskit
• Nohat
• Someguy1221

Bureaucrat changes

Barkeep49

CheckUser changes

0xDeadbeef

Oversighter changes

GB fan

Moneytrees

Miscellaneous

• Sign up for The Core Contest, a competition running from 15 April to 31 May to improve vital articles.

---

Guild of Copy Editors April 2025 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the April 2025 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 2025 coordinator election, Wracking stepped down as coordinator; we thank them for their service. Incumbents Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, and Mox Eden were reelected coordinators, and IQR and WikiEditor5678910 were newly elected coordinator, to serve through 30 June. Nominations for our mid-year Election of Coordinators will open on 1 June (UTC). Drive: 55 editors signed up for our January Backlog Elimination Drive 33 claimed at least one copy-edit and copy-edited 611,404 words in 237 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. Blitz: 14 editors signed up for our February Copy Editing Blitz. 10 claimed at least one copy-edit and copy-edited 46,749 words in 18 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. Drive: 47 editors signed up for our March Backlog Elimination Drive. 28 claimed at least one copy-edit and copy-edited 479,172 words in 207 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. Blitz: Sign up for our April Copy Editing Blitz, which runs from 13 to 19 April. Barnstars will be awarded here. Progress report: As of 9:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 89 requests since 1 January 2024, and the backlog stands at 2,264 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, IQR, Miniapolis, Mox Eden and WikiEditor5678910. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For ensuring move requests are properly closed and redirects are properly tagged. Thanks! Frost 16:24, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Happy to help! Paine  20:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I appreciate your help on this template. There hasn't been any movement regarding the next set of changes I suggested, so I was wondering if either you can implement them or contact the other reviewer. I had poked him as well a few days ago, but still nothing, and I just don't want to lose momentum as I know these suggested template changes can sometimes get lost along the way. poketape (talk) 18:10, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi editor Poketape, the sandbox edits have been made to the live template. Let me know if anything else is needed. And thank you for coming to my talk page! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 06:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Paine Ellsworthh,

May you please look at the request at Template talk:Australian party style - Wikipedia? I see you have been previously accepting requests. Thank you NoBudee (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi editor NoBudee, and thank you for coming to my talk page! Has this been completed? I was unable to find an edit request for 21 April 2025. Let me know if further help is needed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 06:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi editor Paine,

Thanks for the reply. It has been completed but was reverted, you can see the discussion at Template talk:Australian politics/party colours#Color for Australian Citizens Party Thanks. NoBudee (talk) 06:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Pleasure! We'll see how the discussion goes, then. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 07:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Paine,

I was wondering if you could check out the discussion on the Australian Citizens Party talk page? I disputed the NPOV of the article due to what seems to be historical bias, there is an active discussion happening on the talk page. I don't know how interested you would be in the topic, but I am trying to get help from people who would be more neutral/without an interest. I don't really know who else to ask on Wikipedia. Thank you. NoBudee (talk) 00:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for asking, editor NoBudee! I don't know much about this subject, so I hesitate to enter a conversation like that without knowing enough to be helpful. Hopefully, you and the other involved editors will be able to resolve your disagreement. Wish you all the best, and thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 02:15, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Template:Lucasfilm/doc requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

{{Db-t5}}

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Would you mind helped us to close the most recent requested move in Talk:2025 CONCACAF Women's U-17 Championship.

Thank you so much! Rey1996ss (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

To editor Rey1996ss: at this point there appears to be a consensus to move the article to the proposed title. I would be happy to close the request; however, since I closed the previous RM from February, it is common practice for a different uninvolved editor to close an RM on the same talk page. That is so there is not even the appearance of involvement on the part of the closer. Thank you very much for coming to my talk page! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 02:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Perfect, I agree!

Thank you so much! Rey1996ss (talk) 03:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

May 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 May 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Pages Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Good day! Thank you for your edit here [1]. I have a topic ban that prohibits me from using the initiated template. I have asked to get parts of my topic ban repealed, but was not successful. --Jax 0677 (talk) 09:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Very sorry to hear that, editor Jax 0677; let me know if there is anything I can do to help. I had no idea, so thank you for letting me know! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:23, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

On or after August 4, 2025, I plan to appeal to be allowed to use {{histmerge}} so that I can have a history merge performed on some articles. Here is the link to my request for a revision to my topic ban. Thanks! --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Happy to help! Paine  15:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• Good evening Paine. I am trying to appeal my topic ban here. Regards. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

The non-admin closer was trying to relist the RM b/c it was closed prematurely, but the moves had been performed already per a technical request. Srnec (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Noted and thank you very much, editor Srnec! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 22:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion on this is at User talk:Extorc#Requested moves. Basicaly, several users, Srnec and me included, challenged Extorc's closures as bad NACs, and he agreed to re-open the discussion, though without the rights wasn't able to restore the pages to where they were before. I take it that your affirmative close means that your assessment of the discussion (as a page mover) agrees that there was consensus to move? --Paul_012 (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct, and thank you also for coming to my talk page! There are three supporting (including the nom), two of which are strong, policy-based args, and one opposing who did not appear to cite policy that supported their stance of "Country and numeral belong together like first and last names." So yes, there is consensus to move, the original closure was reasonable and followed the directions of the closing instructions – uhm, well, for the most part. Is there something you think I missed? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. It's just that to me the closing summary seemed to describe the move as a fait accompli and didn't quite make clear whose judgement was being exercised in the consensus assessment (i.e. who to talk to in case of dispute). --Paul_012 (talk) 11:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

That's certainly understandable – for the most part that was a procedural close as a courtesy to the nom (and to the RMCD bot, which was listing the RM as a "malformed request"). The bot noticed that all the previously current titles had been turned into redirects, so the request was probably "in the process of closing" (redirects cannot be current titles in move requests). I waited a while to see if the page mover would handle the closure, but he didn't, so I went ahead with it. You did the right thing, though, in coming to me, because the closer of the request should always be the first stop. From here we can make contact with any other editor(s) that might be needed to help handle any dispute that arises. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 16:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Regarding:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Closure_requests&diff=prev&oldid=1288682852

The last I knew, "deletion" and "discussion" are not synonyms. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion are not deletion discussions unless that is the outcome. This is about finding the best target for a redirect, not about deleting it.

• "Items usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted, kept, or retargeted."

Am I missing something here? You should just create a section #Redirects for discussion. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

By chance I just noticed your comment to me here. The ping did not work. I'd still like clarification about the difference between an XfD and a Redirect for discussion. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

To editor Valjean: most of the time those pings do work, but evidently not always. The "Deletion discussions" is a throwback to those days long ago when RfD stood for "Redirects for deletion", which was the original reason for taking a redirect to RfD. Back then, all XfDs stood for "X (something) for deletion". Then, as you know, RfD was changed to "Redirects for discussion" as were all XfDs, which were changed to "X for discussion". Since the Closure requests page is controlled by a bot, I guess nobody wanted to mess with that somewhat quirky bot, so the section subheader was never changed. Nevertheless, all XfD listings go into that section. Put them in the "Other..." section and that will cause confusion, chaos, the bitter end of the world. And you don't want to do that, do you? « grin » P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 18:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

PS. Thank you very much for coming to my talk page! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 18:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I don't use that page very often. Keep up the good work. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Happy to help! Paine  22:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2025).

Administrator changes

Rusalkii

NaomiAmethyst (overlooked last month)

• Master Jay
• Orderinchaos
• Roger Davies
• Tinucherian

Interface administrator changes

Galobtter

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, administrator elections were permanently authorized on a five-month schedule. The next election will be scheduled soon; see Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections for more information. This is an alternate process to the RfA process and does not replace the latter.
• An RfC was closed with consensus to allow editors to opt-out of seeing "sticky decorative elements". Such elements should now be wrapped in {{sticky decoration wrapper}}. Editors who wish to opt out can follow the instructions at WP:STICKYDECO.
• An RfC has resulted in a broad prohibition on the use of AI-generated images in articles. A few common-sense exceptions are recognized.

Miscellaneous

• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in May 2025 to reduce the backlog of articles in the new pages feed. Sign up here to participate!

---

A tag has been placed on Template:War on terror/doc requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

WP:T5

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2025 (UTC)