User talk:Amakuru/Archive 25

DYK for UEFA Euro 2008 Final
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for articles like this, in collaboration, and frequent help! My 12th today, DYK? I decorated, also for a birthday. Songs invite to more music, places, food and flowers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks as ever for your kind words, and for your interesting and informative contributions at DYK! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If you think my DYK are interesting, you might want to say a word on the noms page where exactly that is questioned. Pick one, no pointy mass handling please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Today: 2 interesting DYK (I think), sadly 2 who died (on top of 2 from Poland yesterday), and a concert in which Daniel Barenboim just played piano, - and afterwards he and the orchestra received last year's prize (pictured). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks! Sorry I haven't done any more DYK reviews lately. Will try to do one when I get a chance. Are you still having problems with hooks? &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * yes ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * yes, just see Template:Did you know nominations/Giedrė Šlekytė. - congrats to your new FA! - August songs ow at 13 August, but need update to 15. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * relief: the conductor solved! Today: 3 DYK, including that the author dedicated a summer story to a license plate number ;) - Five rows of images added, sunflowers and butterflies continued, four rows of 15 August alone, - a rich Monteverdi day, - enjoy! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * oh, excellent news! Sorry I never got to look at it, I've been stretched really thin recently, with summer trips and family activities. Thanks as ever for filling me in on your recent contributions, always a pleasure. I'll try to get some new material in soon, once I've finished outstanding things with FAC (🙂) and FAR (😔) &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Here she comes, Giedrė Šlekytė! Was out all day, and will be tomorrow. I'll expand Fleischmann before DYK, and Grimes made him a double nom. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ... and today: Teresa Żylis-Gara, the second soprano to impress me on stage, died, - long live the memory of her beautiful singing, remembered with thanks. 28 August 2013 was a special concert day: look. After Hillbillyholiday gave me a tree. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * sorry for the delay, and I'm sorry to hear of the death of Teresa Żylis-Gara, it sounds like she was a great singer, and you were lucky to hear her in person. And happy memories of other concerts and your tree from Hillbillyholiday. We have been enjoying the blackberries which are found everywhere at this time of year. And also looking forward to this term's music programme, which focuses on music from Swan Lake. Should be fun to play! Hoping you're having a good weekend. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, - nice weekend, today was all-day-rehearsal for Rossini's not so petite mass, and tomorrow concert to listen to at St. Peter, Syburg, - both meaning little time for here. Could you perhaps check the hooks for Template:Did you know nominations/Klassische Philharmonie Bonn? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Full years
So you are changing back all of the weather years? Really no need to, full years are preferred. Please don't change the wars, conflicts, or illnesses, as those are consistent with full-year titles throughout. As for illness, too bad 'Spanish flu' will stay, to be consistent with Wikipedia's epidemic and other illness pages it seems it would be best at 1918-1920 Spanish flu pandemic. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Please stop changing the titles of our articles en masse without consensus. The established title format is for abbreviated years for articles dealing with two consecutive years. There are others who disagree with the changes you implemented and were quite concerned when they saw the bold page moves. Noah Talk 00:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC
 * Then a couple should have said something. One editor did on my user talk page, and I answered by quoting the MOS language, and neither they or anybody else commented or changed any pages back. Luckily Amakuru, almost a month later, did and also carried on the conversation further. Now I'm glad I came here so could kindly add in. Thanks. What I was doing was working off the MOS language of full years being preferred, so la de da, started boldly changing them without revert or anyone but the one editor questioning (who I thought was satisfied with my answer) so I literally thought everyone was fine with it. I'd ask all to consider not changing back the war, conflict, and illness years, they now have full year consistency with many other titles in their topic areas which, by being spread out over three or more years, necessitate full year titles. The weather pages, I can see your point, as the events being highlighted usually would occur at the end months of one year and the first weeks (if that) of the second year, implied by two-digit representation. Anyway, no apologies, except for causing Amakuru to work cleaning up the weather pages. Didn't know about the concerns. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * And thanks to Noah for changing back the rest of the weather pages, I thought that Amakuru had gotten them all. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

2021 Core Contest
Hello. Congratulations on winning second place in the 2021 Core Contest. Could you contact me at karla.marte@wikimedia.org.uk to sort out your prize? Karla Marte(WMUK) (talk) 07:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Alica Schmidt at DYK
Why did you change the approved hook "... that German runner Alica Schmidt, who has qualified for the 2020 Summer Olympics, has won multiple European junior relay medals?" to the undiscussed ".. that German runner Alica Schmidt (pictured), who is running in the Women's 4 × 400 metres relay at the 2020 Summer Olympics, has won multiple European junior relay medals?" in transferring it from the prep area to the queue?

Rather more importantly, why did you do so without checking whether it was true? Your addition was totally incorrect She was an unused sub in the mixed relay several days earlier. Kevin McE (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * urggh OK. Well that was an error, and I should have checked more thoroughly. However, it was also wrong before then, or certainly misleading, because the piped link pointed to Athletics at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Women's 4 × 400 metres relay, an event which she was apparently never involved with except for an early selection, and which ran on the very day of the hook. Ideally the hook should have been sent back for reworking. But anyway, not much we can do about it now. Apologies for not spotting it. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

DYK for George Curtis (footballer, born 1939)
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of BLIT (short story)


The article BLIT (short story) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Only sources are primary."

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of BLIT (short story) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article BLIT (short story) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/BLIT (short story) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of UEFA Euro 2020 Final
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article UEFA Euro 2020 Final you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Four Award

 * thank you, much appreciated! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of UEFA Euro 2020 Final
The article UEFA Euro 2020 Final you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:UEFA Euro 2020 Final for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 11:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:ROPE
I have drafted an alternative version of this essay at User:Cullen328/sandbox/One last chance and invite your input. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  22:52, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

WT:Football
You might want to re-read your post "is a need" or "isn't a need". At the moment it looks contradictory! Govvy (talk) 09:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for the heads up. It was a late-night piece of idiocy I think! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No probs, sometimes I edit something or come across something I don't like on wikipedia and it feels like a can of worms about to explode! I feel this template discussion just turned into a hand-grenade now! lol. Govvy (talk) 10:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * quite so. People here do get very worked up over very trivial matters! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Snooker
I have jumped the gun and promoted this, thinking that you had signed off on the source formatting. Entirely my fault for misreading. How serious is what is left? I was about to revert all of the "paperwork", but if the outstanding issues are minor and Lee is on top of them, perhaps I don't need to. What do you think? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * no worries, there's really only that one outstanding item re bundling and it's probably at Lee's discretion anyway, so no need to reopen. I was just a little surprised to see it closed is all! Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Phew! Thanks. Yeah, I can imagine. Note to self: "More haste, less speed!" And thanks for picking up the source formatting, that is appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

What the heck is this move?
It looked mighty strange and you were online so I thought I'd ask about this editors series of user moves. Especially this change. I look at a conversation history user Somnifuguist was having with me at A tennis article and now it says the user is "Renamed user qoTkZBdUBi". Just making sure it was all done correctly. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:41, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * yes, it looks OK to me, on first glance. The "Renamed user" followed by random characters username jd part of the WP:VANISH process, whereby editors can choose to have their edits not appear under their original username when they retire. It's not a complete severing of association with the old account though, you can always trace it back. But the assumption is that user will not be contributing any further. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It looked quite weird and I wanted to make sure. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * sure, that makes sense. The renamed usernames do look odd, but it seems to be a well-established practice to use that format. I've no idea what prompted the retirement, but presumably Somnifuguist applied offline to be renamed, and then Céréales Killer, who is a bureaucrat on French Wikipedia and a global user renamer, then carried out the requested change. Cheers  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 September newsletter
The fourth round of the competition has finished with over 500 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants, 🇧🇼 The Rambling Man and Epicgenius, each scoring over 3000 points, and six contestants scoring over 1000. All but one of the finalists achieved one or more FAs during the round, the exception being Bloom6132 who demonstrated that 61 "in the news" items produces an impressive number of points. Other contestants who made it to the final are Gog the Mild, 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski,  BennyOnTheLoose, 🇷🇼 Amakuru and  Hog Farm. However, all their points are now swept away and everyone starts afresh in the final round.

Round 4 saw the achievement of 18 featured articles and 157 good articles. Bilorv scored for a 25-article good topic on Black Mirror but narrowly missed out on qualifying for the final round. There was enthusiasm for FARs, with 89 being performed, and there were 63 GARs and around 100 DYKs during the round. As we start round 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it to the final round; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. For other contestants, 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 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of UEFA Euro 2020 Final
The article UEFA Euro 2020 Final you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:UEFA Euro 2020 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) 18:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * nice one, thanks for that. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 19:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Jake Wartenberg
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Emperor • Viridian Bovary
 * Pictogram voting rename.png →

Guideline and policy news
 * Feedback is requested on the Universal Code of Conduct enforcement draft by the Universal Code of Conduct Phase 2 drafting committee.
 * A RfC is open on whether to allow administrators to use extended confirmed protection on high-risk templates.
 * A discussion is open to decide when, if ever, should discord logs be eligible for removal when posted onwiki (including whether to oversight them)
 * A RfC on the next steps after the trial of pending changes on TFAs has resulted in a 30 day trial of automatic semi protection for TFAs.

Technical news
 * The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.

Arbitration
 * A request for comment is in progress to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. Comments and new proposals are welcome.

Miscellaneous
 * The 2021 RfA review is now open for comments.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Coventry ring road
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Coventry ring road you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Coventry ring road
The article Coventry ring road you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Coventry ring road for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of UEFA Euro 2004 Final
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article UEFA Euro 2004 Final you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 11:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of UEFA Euro 2004 Final
The article UEFA Euro 2004 Final you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:UEFA Euro 2004 Final for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of UEFA Euro 2004 Final
Hello! Your submission of UEFA Euro 2004 Final at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!  Naruto love hinata 5 (talk · contributions) 14:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

By the way, I also responded to the MindaRyn nomination.  Naruto love hinata 5 (talk · contributions) 14:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Gerda's September corner
Omas gegen Rechts - enjoy strong women! I thought of Yoninah on the first day of Rosh Hashanah --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Very nice! Much respect to the Omas there, they seem to be making their voices heard in an encouraging way. And thanks for pointing out that link to Yoninah today. I have been busy making a map (see below) in the last couple of days, at the request of our mutual friend The Rambling Man at a GA review. It seems to have come out quite nicely in the end! I've also enjoying the very hot weather we've been having here lately (31 degrees in September, that's quite something). Wishing you a pleasant week and month ahead. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! - Rich Main page today: first TFA by promising author, pictured DYK by my friend LouisAlain who is discouraged by an AN discussion, and one of the Recent deaths. Enjoy! - I also enjoyed the weather - biking - today! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Very nice! And sorry to hear about Louis. It's sad when long-term editors who've given their all to the project find themselves in policy hot water. The same is true of, someone I've met in real life before but is now blocked for copyvio. I can see both sides of the argument in cases like that, but what we really need to be doing is rehabilitating those people back in such a way that they don't get into trouble again. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Some believe that an article in Main space has to be perfect, and others know that it will never be perfect. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

today: the day of bold red and black, for Dante who died 700 years ago, and Peter Fleischmann who died recently, leaving us films full of vision. Dante: just heard Inferno, imagined by a woman, the main character both speaking and singing with an inner 4-part voice! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

today: moar music, Beethoven, and my brother was in the orchestra, 10 July! - Thank you for help with all the EUFA Cup finals! DYK needing a pair of eyes: Wilfried Gruhn. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks I'll try to look at the DYK later on!  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * next chapter --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , I hope you're having a good weekend. I have found myself having to shop for furniture, attend a party, cook the meals and do a training course this weekend, so not as much time to catch up on my Wiki projects as I would have liked! Nice to see your inputs as ever, though. Regarding Wilfried Gruhn, I probably can't really add much more than what the reviewer has already said. Although, as I said before, I do think in general the "interesting to a broad audience" criterion is poorly defined and inconsistently applied, in this case we have a straight choice between two hooks I would have to agree with the reviewer that the ALT0 is more hooky than the ALT1. I get your point about getting as much as possible across to readers in the hook, but in a one sentence hook that doesn't really work unfortuantely. For a reader unfamiliar with the subject, giving two short facts about both the founding the Gordon institute and the international society dedicated to Leo Kestenberg (whom I hadn't heard of before unfortunately) ends up begging the question of why that's notable. Lots of people found institutes and start societies, and it wouldn't necessarily draw me into clicking the hook. Whereas the thing about him using the "Gordon music learning theory" is interesting, because I immediately want to know what that is. As such, you'll probably have to wait for another third opinion on that hook, as I would be inclined to approve ALT0 too, sorry about that. Cheers, and happy Sunday to you. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, understand. Today: a woman in red, two who died under "in memoriam" and LouisAlain missed (who donated Kestenberg to the English Wikipedia), - my first editnotice read: "Every editor is a human being" which is quoted from a comment by Geometry guy in a 2012 discussion on WP:AN. I updated my images. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

UEFA Euro 2004 Final
Hey man, look, I'm just trying to get the article to be as good as it can be. If you have issues with one element of a big edit, just undo that one bit, I haven't got a problem with that. But when I make a lot of changes and they get reverted because of one minor part, and then I hear you didn't even look at the rest of the changes, that doesn't feel good. I get how easy it is to just undo an edit in one fell swoop without looking over the good and bad elements - I've been guilty of it myself - but try not to. Anyway, I appreciate you taking a look when you get a chance; there's literally no rush on any of this (WP:NODEADLINE and all that!). Good luck with the rest of the GAN. – PeeJay 22:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of UEFA Euro 2004 Final
The article UEFA Euro 2004 Final you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:UEFA Euro 2004 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) 19:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Coventry ring road
The article Coventry ring road you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Coventry ring road 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) 09:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Redirect target
The target of USA cricket, which you created, has been changed. I reverted once but that was undone. I don't feel strongly enough about this to do more; just notifying you in case you want to open an RFD. MB 17:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Question
I nominated Pierson, Iowa for GA and I have a question that I think you might be able to help me with. The sources in the census section aren't on the U.S. census website anymore. I was wondering if that would be considered as AGF that they were there when the references were added. SL93 (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Zeca (footballer, born 1988)
Just for the record, you were also reverted in the page. I (for now) give up!

Attentively, from Portugal --193.137.135.2 (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 15
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2014 FIFA World Cup Final, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page United States national football team.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

DYK for UEFA Euro 2004 Final
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

POTD
To continue this conversation here, I think your position is unsatisfactory. For example, I have just created Template:POTD/2021-10-17. The caption consists of a single sentence. The alternative name "Duomo Vecchio" is not referenced in the article, but I assume it is correct because it is the name given in the corresponding Italian Wikipedia article. Nor is the fact that it is a Catholic church cited. That it is a "Romanesque round church" is cited, but that it stands next to the new cathedral, or that the new cathedral exists at all, or that they are co-cathedrals, is not; common sense suggests that the photograph in the article of the old and new cathedrals demonstrates that they are adjacent. So the caption does not accord with the rules and should not be allowed, but I do not think that any reasonable person will object to it. Perhaps we should just abbreviate it to "A Romanesque round church in Brescia" (but was it in Brescia at all?).

As you mentioned, Gog has rewritten some instructions With regard to the first, it makes allowance for the photographer's interpretation of what he saw, but he may not be an expert on the subject nor have correctly interpreted it. In Template:POTD/2021-09-13 for example, a lot of the blurb came from the description on this page, and it helped the viewer understand what they saw. I don't believe anyone objected to that caption but it did not accord with the rules either.
 * 1) All prose mentioned in the blurb must be found in the target article. Or in the description linked to the image itself, if it's a specific detail not relevant to the article topic.
 * 2) All prose used in the blurb, be it from the article or the image description, must have a citation to a reliable source.

I don't really disagree with the principle of these rules, only on their too literal interpretation. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for the note. Regarding the Old Cathedral blurb, I think this is pretty much a textbook case of where the guidelines above ought to be applied. It's not like it's a long blurb in any case, so should be relatively easy to source the various things. Put it this way: if this was presented as a DYK blurb, for instance
 * ... that the Old Cathedral, Brescia, or Duomo Vecchio, a Roman Catholic church in Brescia, Italy, has a rustic circular Romanesque co-cathedral which stands next to the New Cathedral?
 * You'd surely insist on seeing a cite in the article for each part of that hook, including the Catholicism, the Romanesque architecture and the fact that it stands next to another cathedral. The same principle should apply for POTD. As for whether what the photographer says about the picture is accurate, that's a more thorny issue. I'm thinking that for a building like that, it's reasonably easy to check using other means that it is what they say it is (e.g. Google images, a guidebook, or even going to the place in person). For other subjects, like the total internal reflection you mention above, or even the yellow-billed oxpecker, it becomes a bit more tricky, and maybe there's an element of AGF that the photographer has correctly identified it, coupled with some common sense. Of course, with citations to bird books included it makes it a lot more easy to visually verify the truth of it. But any other detail on the picture, for example saying that a particular painting is "oil on canvas", should be cited. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I resolved the Brescia POTD by improving the referencing of the article, but now I have another problem. I have listed the Japanese high speed train at Template:POTD/2021-10-13 but I do not know how to add all the strip photography components (there are 16 images). Can you help? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * that is certainly an odd case, and I think the solution should be for us to display it the same way as it is in the article, with a horizontally-scrolling image block showing the whole train set. It doesn't make sense to show the pics individually, because they're not intended to be viewed that way. Now I don't think the "POTD" and "POTD protected" templates are going to be able to handle this on their own, and I also don't think it's worth anyone doing special coding for this given that it's a complete one-off.
 * To get around this, I've therefore experimented with a sort of "fudge" which I think will enable us to do this. At Template:POTD/2021-10-13, I have put the scrollbar images as a special div which sits immediately above the caption, rather than using the template's image slot. I've then inserted a long-thin blank image File:Blank300.png as a place-holder for the image itself, which readers will not be able to see in that template. For the protected version of the template, the one that actually appears on the main page, we're going to have to edit that manually in order to get it to display correctly (again, the code which generates the protected version from the unprotected version isn't going to get this right on its own). So I've mocked up a sample of how it will look at User:Amakuru/POTD protected/2021-10-13, with a mocked up main page containing that sample at User:Amakuru/Main page. Please could you have a look at those mock ups, and let me know if this looks like it might solve the issue in question? If they do, then we can probably create the protected version manually ahead of time, which should ensure the bot doesn't create one for us. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The mock-up version looks OK to me. Perhaps can give his view. Can I leave this to you, because it is well outside my area of expertise? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * excellent, thanks. I've taken the liberty of moving my mock-up to be the actual protected version of the template already, Template:POTD protected/2021-10-13, which will hopefully mean that the bot won't touch it, and it is ready to go as of now. The mocked up main page can still be seen at User:Amakuru/Main page. Obviously we can keep an eye on it as we get nearer the time, and if Ravenpuff has any comments then happy to take those on board. Note that I've updated the "recently featured" to be the current entries for the 10th, 11th and 12th of October, which is currently Giuseppe Verdi, NASA space-flown Apollo medallions and Christopher Columbus. If there is a change in the schedule between now and then, we can update those accordingly. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Religion of peace
06:13, 15 September 2016‎ Amakuru talk contribs‎ 47 bytes +47‎  Amakuru moved page Religion of Peace to Religion of peace: completed move request on talk pag
 * This article had edit history. Please restore it. Lembit Staan (talk) 22:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * In the future please link to the discussion on question in the edit summary. Lembit Staan (talk) 22:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

RM
Many thanks for your intervention on the incident board and for your explanation of the correct procedure, which I have noted.

On further consideration, it now seems to me that I should have closed the RM with no consensus. Am I able to amend my own close? Havelock Jones (talk) 10:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that's fine. It shouldn't be controversial for you to amend it that way, particularly as the outcome is the same in terms of the page not being moved. Sometimes an amended close also arises from a "conversation with the closer", if someone disagrees with what you've written. You can go ahead and change it. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

RM at ISIL
Hello,

Thanks for taking the time to go through the RM discussion at ISIL. In your closing, you stated "the term "Islamic State" is the most common at this point, compared with ISIS...". What evidence is there that "Islamic State" is more common than ISIS? Several users in the discussion provided evidence that "ISIS" was more common than "Islamic State", based on this ngram. While many users asserted that "Islamic State" was the most common name, no one seems to have provided any stats backing up that assertion (and I don't see anyone explicitly stating that "Islamic State" was more common than ISIS). Most of the support votes for "Islamic State" seem to have come before evidence was presented that "ISIS" is the WP:COMMONNAME.

You also said "the consensus is that the qualifier is not needed". Can you explain that a bit? I count 7 contributors who supported using some disambiguator. Thanks for your time.VR talk 16:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for your query, and I'll be happy to clarify how I saw the discussion. You did raise the point that ISIS comes out on top over Islamic State in the ngram search, but there were also arguments made in the original nomination statement regarding the status of that term, with the assertion that "Even outlets that still use the acronym "ISIS" or "ISIL" have begun referring to the group simply as the 'Islamic State'", accompanied by evidence. Thus the common name argument is being looked by the RM participants at as a trend, rather than an absolute, and through more varied sources than just the book sources that constitute an ngram search. So there were valid arguments made on both sides of that coin, as to whether Islamic State or ISIS could be considered the more commonly used name. The question therefore becomes which argument persuaded more people, which is one of the key indicators for assessing consensus; and it's clear that in pure number terms, more people were persuaded by the "Islamic State" argument than the "ISIS" one, and despite your valuable input in the form of the ngram search, editors continued to favour "Islamic State" over "ISIS" even after that. I don't see that consensus for ISIS could ever be called in this discussion, and had I closed it that way it would have been a WP:supervote.
 * On the other point, whether to include a disambiguator or not, as you say, seven favoured a qualifier, but I count about 13 who supported the original proposal without saying there should be a qualifier. And many of those raised WP:DIFFCAPS as their argument. Now I'm aware that DIFFCAPS has had its critics in the past, and in many cases it is not now used - for example Red Meat no longer points to the comic strip, and rightly so. But the point is that DIFFCAPS is assessed on a case-by-case basis, it is not completely deprecated. And in this case, a numerical majority supported the original proposal, which was an unqualified "Islamic State", using the capitalisation to differentiate it from Islamic state. The bottom line is that reliable sources now routinely use the capitalised "Islamic State" to mean the organisation in question, and it is not unreasonable to therefore go with the majority of participants in the RM who wanted to follow suit. As I said in the close, this is obviously a contentious question in more than one regard, and there was never going to be a close that pleased everybody. But I do think this one most closely aligns with the discussion. Thanks, and hopefully that answers some of your questions. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree the discussion was contentious and thanks for taking the time to close it and to clarify here. My intent here is to ensure that consensus was not misinterpreted and according to policy.
 * Regarding the qualifier, you said "13 who supported the original proposal without saying there should be a qualifier". But the original proposal itself gave qualifier as an option: "Proposal to move this article to Islamic State or some variation, such as Islamic State (organization)". So can all 13 of those be construed to mean as supporting only the unqualified name?
 * The evidence you pointed out for "Islamic State" summed to 7 articles. But WP:COMMONNAME requires "prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources". 7 articles can't constitute a majority on a topic that has thousands of sources. Searches like ngram, scholar etc come far closer to determining "majority", despite their limitations. I also don't see "editors continued to favour "Islamic State" over "ISIS" even after that". After 99to99 presented the ngrams on Sep 13, 3 believed "ISIS" was the commonname (99to99, the IP and I), 3 believed that "Islamic State" was (indopug, Ecpiandy and Shadow4dark), and one ambiguous (Mhhossein). Does that not indicate a shift in consensus? I understand WP:SUPERVOTE precludes closing it for "ISIS". What about letting the discussion continue? Or suggesting "a clear new course of RM action" that would allow for more focused "Islamic State" vs "ISIS" discussion? Thanks again.VR talk 16:03, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for your reply and yes, there are circumstances under which a new piece of evidence is introduced fairly late in the RM which could constitute a "game changer". I'm not entirely convinced that the "ISIS" ngram constitutes this, since most participants were aware of the lie of the land already with common name arguments already advanced. And as you note yourself, three !votes for "Islamic State" continued coming in even after the new evidence was revealed, albeit offset by three that suggested somethign else. What I wouldn't do is to discount the earlier !votes entirely, because those editors have the right to have their opinions considered, even if they didn't return to "reaffirm" them after the new piece of evidence was introduced. Note that there were also specific arguments made against ISIS earlier, in particular the fact that the group calls itself IS (not an overriding factor over COMMONNAME, but one to consider) and also that the term "of Iraq and Syria" no longer conveys the true scope of the organisation.
 * I didn't see much value in a relist at the point I found the debate, given that there was still a reasonably clear numeric consensus for what remains a reasonable title, and most of the participants had not returned, with the ongoing debate was between yourself and one or two others without seeming to materially have impact on the overall consensus. Regarding your "clear new course of RM action", I wouldn't have an objection to you starting a fresh RM to specifically examine the "Islamic State" vs "ISIS" question, given the late evidence, the different plausible titles emerging from this RM and the fact that the previous debate was muddied by examining two separate issues (IS vs ISIS and also the issues of primary topic for "Islamic State"). If you wish to open such a new RM, then you can go ahead and do so, although I would urge you to ping all of the participants from the previous RM so that they are aware of the new discussion and can give their input. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:11, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2014 FIFA World Cup Final
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2014 FIFA World Cup Final you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2014 FIFA World Cup Final
The article 2014 FIFA World Cup Final you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:2014 FIFA World Cup Final for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 11:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2014 FIFA World Cup Final
The article 2014 FIFA World Cup Final you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2014 FIFA World Cup 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) 18:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Definite articles
Will you also try moving, say, Revolver (Beatles album) to Revolver (The Beatles album)? It's kinda dumb to have all these articles with inconsistent titling formats. Also, do you know how I can get a bot to change all those redirect links on the Beach Boys articles and nav templates? ili (talk) 11:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As you probably recall, as you were involved in the discussions and also argued for including "The", the 2019 RfC decision to remove "The" was overturned to no consensus, but after a large number of pages had already been moved. I thought I had moved them all back at the time, in particular lots of the Beach Boys ones, but annoyingly it seems I missed quite a few, so I've been tidying those up yesterday and today.
 * As for the Beatles, I do agree with you there, they should be moved for consistency, but I've a feeling those were explicitly discussed in a Requested Move discussion somewhere in the past. Since you've suggested it, however, I will see if I can make some moves there for WP:CONSISTENCY and see what happens. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * regarding your second question, if there are any obvious ones that need doing immediately then I can see about doing them myself using AWB. I've just updated the links in Template:The Beach Boys so they now point to the new titles, let me know any other templates of that nature. As for links in articles, I'd say that's not an issue that needs urgently fixing. Linking to redirects from article space is not forbidden, and they still go to the right place, so there's no hurry to change them I'd say... &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Yaduvanshi
Hii dear amakuru please see Yaduvanshi article Actually whenever someone searches for Yaduvanshi, automatically become Yadu Legendary King Opens please see this problem and update this page again Yaduvanshi Kshatriya were originally Ahirs, and redirect Yadu Legendary King page to Yaduvanshi page, because people search for Yaduvanshi, not Yadu legendary king so correct information Yaduvanshi page, not Yadu legendary king, please dear see 🙏🙏 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4053:e0d:db24::5749:e614 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Trout
...for removing the whole "Contested technical requests" section. No such user (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * - something smells fishy around here... Much deserved, thank you and apologies! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Months of African Cinema Global Contest!
Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Administrators' newsletter – October 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Blablubbs
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Alvestrand • Black Falcon • Deathphoenix • Dppowell • Mark Arsten • JGHowes (deceased)



Oversighter changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Callanecc
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Mkdw

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Galobtter

Guideline and policy news
 * Following an RfC, extended confirmed protection may be used preemptively on certain high-risk templates.
 * Following a discussion at the Village Pump, there is consensus to treat discord logs the same as IRC logs. This means that discord logs will be oversighted if posted onwiki.

Technical news
 * DiscussionTools has superseded Enterprisey's reply-link script. Editors may switch using the "Discussion tools" checkbox under.

Arbitration
 * A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
 * Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
 * The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.

Miscellaneous
 * Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
 * The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)