User talk:JuniperChill/Archives

June 2020
Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits, as you did to Rest area. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, please use the sandbox instead, where you are given a certain degree of freedom in what you write.   TuskDeer (talk) 06:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Welcome Breathinkeeps32! Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are registered editors!

Hello, Breathinkeeps32. Welcome to Wikipedia! I'm S0091, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.

Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes   at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.

 Sincerely, S0091 (talk) 19:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:S0091&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:WelcomeVisual/user-talk_preload (Leave me a message)]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sun Haven (January 26)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Zxcvbnm was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sun Haven and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Draft:Sun_Haven Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zxcvbnm&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Sun_Haven reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sun haven cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Sun haven cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:51, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Southeastern Trains (disambiguation)


A tag has been placed on Southeastern Trains (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 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. CycloneYoris talk! 20:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Solarpunk (video game) (February 18)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Qcne was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Solarpunk (video game) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Draft:Solarpunk_(video_game) Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Qcne&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Solarpunk_(video_game) reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

 Qcne  (talk)  17:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Royal standards of Canada move closure
Hello! Would you mind giving the reason for your 'not moved' decision at Talk:Royal standards of Canada, please? It's helpful to know if the topic comes up for discussion again. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Because of the fact there were four opposers and two supporters so there is a concsensus not to move. That RM stated that should the change go ahead, it might have to also rename Royal standard(s) of (country) to Royal flags of (country). Plus that article talks about more than just the flag. JuniperChill (talk) 14:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned that the number of editors in support and opposition seems to have formed a major part of your decision. Move requests are not a poll, and the strength of the arguments on each side should be the main consideration, rather than the numbers. The effect on other articles is also only a peripheral concern, as the RM only concerned one article. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * So I feel like I should have used 'no consensus' rather than 'not moved' as the previous RM before that.Plus, this article planned to move to three different names (including the last RM) so it is safe to say the current title remains. Plus article titles should be WP:CONSISTENT whereever possible because should this move gone ahead, it would put this article out of line with the rest. JuniperChill (talk) 15:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * First, I should say that I appreciate you taking the time to close the discussion, just to make that clear. However, I'm not convinced by your reasoning in closing the RM as you have. Consistency, in particular, is not the only consideration when deciding on the most appropriate article title. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I am new to closing RMs so please take that into mind. Since most RM closures do not feature a comment beyond '(not) moved', I thought it is optional to feature a comment since involved users cannot close it so this talk was not expected. I have closed like 5 RMs so far and all of them didn't have a comment plus were clearly against moving. The very first move of Royal standards of Canada didn't have an extra comment but the second one did. If the move needs to be reopened/relisted (without hopefully this being taken to WP:MRV) then I will go ahead and undo the close and let someone else decide or change to no consensus if you want since I am not that experienced regarding the relevant policies (including t do with royal standards/flags) and might have made a mistake so sorry if I closed the move without thinking about being questioned. JuniperChill (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I did mean it when I said I appreciated you closing the move. I'm sorry that opening this discussion has alarmed you, that really wasn't my intent – reading it back I have been quite forthright, and in hindsight I should have been friendlier!
 * It's up to you whether you undo the close or not. Although I have some concerns about how you've interpreted the close, it would be inappropriate for me, as an involved editor, to pressure you to reopen the discussion. What I would say is that, if you don't fully understand the issue being discussed, that might be something to consider, but I'm not expecting you to undo your action.
 * Whatever you do, please don't be discouraged from closing RMs. I appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions, and I hope that if anyone does the same in the future it's less of a shock! A.D.Hope (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Well anyway, thank you for appreciating my closure of that RM, despite this long talk. I will not undo my action and I will only close RMs that are clearly for or against the move until I build experience. Talk resolved. JuniperChill (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for listening, and I respect your decision not to undo the close. Building up some experience on simplier RMs might be a good idea, but don't be afraid to tackle more complicated ones if you feel up to it – the worst that will happen is it'll be re-opened, after all. All the best, A.D.Hope (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

March 2024
This is a common point of confusion, but just because the pages linked do not have a title that matches exactly does not mean they don't count for the purposes of WP:G14. See for example Thomas Ainsworth (disambiguation) or just all of Deletion review/Log/2023 November 27 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:4813:ED97:C22B:16D0 (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)


 * First off, see WP:G14 'Disambiguation pages that have titles ending in "(disambiguation)" but disambiguate only one extant Wikipedia page'. This means that if a dab page has a primary topic and only links to one other article, then it might be eligible for G14 (unless I'm reading it wrong). Second, It also seems that I am not the only one who requested G14 as another did. I failed to check the history page.
 * (for anyone reading this, this was because I requested G14 from Abantiades (disambiguation) before the CSD plate got removed JuniperChill (talk) 23:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If two pages are linked, then more than one page is disambiguated and so G14 cannot apply. Indeed if that were not the case there would be no need for Template:One other as all such pages would simply be deleted. Also it is almost never helpful to tag a page that has one day to go before a PROD expires as pages regularly sit longer than that in the speedy deletion category. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:1888:9434:7187:CE8E (talk) 01:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I definitely thought that G14 applies when a page ends in disambiguation and has links to two pages or less. Also, speedy deletion tends to happen within a few hours so I thought I could speed things up. JuniperChill (talk) 13:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Usually within a few hours, but not always, sometimes as much as a few days, especially if it is one of the more difficult ones like G4 when the page is long and you need to scrutinize the two versions side-by-side. Speeding things up by a few hours is almost never important, suitable only for G10 or maybe G3. Even with longer periods, with some pages "speeding things up" is counterproductive. Take for example drafts, invariably deleted after 6 months, and receive basically zero non-bot page views due to not being indexed by search engines. So again while G10 and G3 make sense, G2 for example is pointless and takes up more time since the page has to be scrutinized, whereas leaving for G13 takes no time as expired drafts need no scrutiny and can be mass-deleted via script.
 * The way G14 is worded refers to the number of disambiguated pages, thus if no pages are linked that is zero, and if one page is linked then it's one, hence why when a page disambiguates (links) only one page but does not end in "disambiguation" it is not deleted, but redirected to the one remaining page. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:B048:2DB8:1A01:EC8A (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)