User talk:Nurg

Ferries in Wellington
Hmmm, that deletion is a bit strange, so far as I'm aware until global warming is better underway Wellington is all above the waterline and so above ferry level. Do you mean ferries that visit wellington? Then don't you think you'd do better if you put your deletion back?

You want to talk about Wellington Harbour Ferries don't you but don't wipe out the Wellington Ferry that went from Lyttelton to Wellington and back. Are you youngish and living in Wellington? Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 13:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The Union Company article covers the Wellington–Lyttelton ferry. Nurg (talk) 08:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Then would you mind if I change the name of this article to Wellington Harbour Ferries? Ferries in Wellington is a bad name, specially the unexpected way in which you understand it. Eddaido (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "Wellington Harbour Ferries" with capitals is not correct, because it is not a proper name. "Wellington harbour ferries" and "Wellington Harbour ferries" are not so bad. But it is not just about the vessels, so maybe "Ferry transport in Wellington Harbour" is better, like Ferry transport in Berlin. But then maybe we should follow the Berlin pattern and have "Ferry transport in Wellington". I suggest using the Requested moves process if you want to change the name, because that opens it up for discussion. That is what I have done for Talk:Public transport in Wellington, even though I think that is a more straightforward change. Nurg (talk) 09:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Terminal boredom here. Good luck, Eddaido (talk) 11:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * What's happening? I see it is still your foolishly misleading name for the article. Eddaido (talk) 04:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

North Shore Air
All information provided by me regarding North Shore Air and the North Shore Aero Club (parent organization)were provided by the Aero Club. simply email and you will find out that the airline is defunct and folded in October 2015. All other information was provided by the now defunct website of the airline. Thanks. Slick1nz 09.49, 19 November 2015 —Preceding undated comment added 20:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Canadian Checkers rename
Curious on the basis that you think you know "Checkers" w/b lowercase in game name "Canadian Checkers"? ("Canadian is capitalised, checkers is not" is ambiguous, what do you mean? The two words constitute a game name, not a prose expression.) Curious to understand your rationale for the changes you made. IHTS (talk) 22:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * None of the other draughts variants have "checkers" or "draughts" capitalised. Nor is "checkers" or "draughts" capitalised at the draughts article. It seems to me that "checkers" and "draughts" are common nouns, including when part of a variant game. Is there anything to the contrary in the WP:MOS or other project pages? Nurg (talk) 22:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not sure the other draughts variant article titles are correct. I understand that the words "checkers" and "draughts" representing a family of related games aren't capitalized, those are not specific game names rather game family names. It seems to me that words "checkers" and "draughts" are common nouns too, but not when part & parcel to a game name. And it seems to me that a game name is synonymous to game title. (For example, "galaxy" is a common noun. Yet the galaxy is referred to properly as "Andromeda Galaxy" not "Andromeda galaxy". So game names like "Alice Chess" and "Chinese Checkers" and "Canadian Checkers" seems to me should follow that same pattern, do you disagree?) I'm not 100% sure but I don't think the MOS is advanced enough or really has anything specific enough to address what we are discussing here. The game name is presented as "Canadian Checkers" in at least these two sources: New Rules for Classic Games by R. Wayne Schmittberger (p. 171), and The New Games Treasury by Merilyn Mohr (p. 49). (And I think MOS does say something about titles being presented consistent with how they are majorly presented in published sources; do you know of any published sources that present the game name "Canadian checkers"?) I'd love to open a thread at MOS on this, but I'm not confident I can generate enough expert interest on the topic to settle the matter for WP, for consistency because the same issue affects many many article names and references to game names. That's part of the reason I'm here collecting your thoughts/reasons, since I think that discussion s/b opened sometime. (I've specific interest since I created articles Wildebeest Chess, Rhombic Chess, Wolf Chess, Cross Chess, Double Chess, Beirut Chess, Hostage Chess, Canadian Checkers, and others. I also created chess variant article Balbo's Game, are you of the position it s/b "Balbo's game" as game name/article title? And again, what about your position re "Chinese Checkers" [many many sources present the game name in caps], "Alice Chess" [ditto], Grand Chess [ditto, this game is even often referred to as "GC"], and "Andromeda Galaxy"? This seems to be a complex topic though for reasons of consistency with other names I didn't bring up here (for example "bullet chess" is the name or title of a game format or a game title that is lowercase due to popular use?; and "shogi" and and many others are specific game names/titles too but are lowercase; and "Chess960 is a specific game name/title too that is not a manufacturer's proprietary property or trademark but is uppercase; the great game Go has name represented "Go" not "go", however, this seems to be a special decision at that article's Talk page whose main reason is I believe that the consensus didn't want to confuse readers with the common verb "go" - which I think was a poor decision at least it isn't consistent with other game names like "chess", "shogi", "xiangqi", etc., which are traditional games too but all lowercase, and I'm not sure anything in MOS was helpful to them since the game name appears both ways in different major sources; and I've seen representations in sources three ways for this specific game name when used in prose: "International draughts", "International Draughts", and "international draughts".) IHTS (talk) 04:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting and (as you say) complex topic. I shall give it some further thought. Nurg (talk) 07:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thx. IHTS (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Nurg/Australia-New Guinea
I noticed an old draft you have at User:Nurg/Australia-New Guinea for Australia (continent). Has that content be merged into the article? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Cook Islands
Should Cook Islands categories be included in New Zealand categories? See Category:Fauna of New Zealand. Goustien (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No. The Cook Islands, Niue, Tokelau and Ross Dependency are not part of the country of New Zealand, though they are part of the Realm of New Zealand, which is not the same as the country of New Zealand. I'll fix the categories. Nurg (talk) 08:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

link
Hope you don't mind. This way we dodge nofollow. Acer (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Auckland council
Can you please stop undoing my edits. It really annoys me when i put all my effort on providing correct information in wiki and someone trys to change my edits. Please just let other people have the freedom of editing and stop vandalising other peoples edit. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvfmgnlllj (talk • contribs) 07:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Page mover granted
Hello, Nurg. Your account has been [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3ANurg granted] the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when  is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:
 * Requested moves
 * Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, post here, or just let me know. Thank you, and happy editing! ~ Rob 13 Talk 03:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks again Rob13. Nurg (talk) 04:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

NZTA external links on New Zealand State Highway articles
Hi Nurg, I noticed you removed the external link on New Zealand State Highway 1 and New Zealand State Highway 27. I recently a few months ago included this link on all state highway articles in the External Links section - for the reason of consistency as it appeared on many of them already. I'm not sure how relevant it is to continue to have this EL, but to be fair if we decide to remove them on two pages, we ought to for the rest, or none at all. Please let me know your thoughts. Ajf773 (talk) 10:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Ajf773, thanks for making contact. My understanding is that where we have a WP article on an organisation, we link to that article, rather than linking to the org's homepage. So, generally, only the article about the org will have the ext link to its homepage. The state highway articles usually have a link to NZ Transport Agency in the body or infobox, so that's all we want. If NZTA had a page about a specific state highway, then a deep link to that page might well but appropriate, but they don't as far as I'm aware. I can't find a policy about preferring internal links to external links, but point #19 at WP:LINKSTOAVOID is relevant. So, I think we should remove links to the NZTA homepage from all the state highway articles. (The deep link I updated in the Ext links section of New Zealand state highway network is good though, I think.) Cheers, Nurg (talk) 08:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Mentor
Hello,

I have admired your works on Wikipedia. I am new to the site and was wondering if you could be my mentor? I know that this is a long shot, but based on your edits we have similar interests and knowledge. This would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Coolwikieditor (talk) 15:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I would be a good mentor for you, but if you have any questions for me, feel free to ask. If you find I am not a good mentor for you, you might find a better mentor through Adopt-a-user. Nurg (talk) 09:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I hate editor like you
I really do not like editors like you, big talk and little content. While the article is still in development, as long as there are no copyright issues, do not discourage other contributors. Renzut —Preceding undated comment added 08:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * My intent is to improve articles. I don't understand why you feel discouraged. It is not my intent to discourage you, and I'm sorry you feel that way. It is normal to discuss content if there is any disagreement. Nurg (talk) 09:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Nurg/Australia-New Guinea
User:Nurg/Australia-New Guinea, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Nurg/Australia-New Guinea and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Nurg/Australia-New Guinea during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 09:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for The Plague
You did it in 2015, but I'd like to thank you for expanding the article on The Plague when it was nominated for deletion. I was saddened recently when I found out how many New Zealand art/music pages had been deleted, and I was pleased to see that one survive. I note your role in the saving of the page and thank you. I've just put in a new page for Richard von Sturmer, one for Corben Simpson, and hope to do Limbs Dance Company soon. All of those were deleted for reasons I disagree with. Ross-c (talk) 20:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Geoff Simmons
Thank you for all your Geoff Simmons contributions :)

Referencing
Hi Nurg, thanks for your valuable contributions. I just thought I'd remind you that edits like this should really be backed up by a reliable source.  Schwede 66  22:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Sandfly Pic
Good question. I'm not quite sure because it's been over 10 years, but it must have been somewhere in the Te Anau area. I remember that it was a public campground near a lake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilio floris (talk • contribs) 12:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Failed verification
Hi, your last edit on HighWire Press removed a claim on the grounds that it failed verification, but the claim was already given in the page that was cited: https://www.highwirepress.com/about-us says "over 3000 journals, books, reference works, and proceedings." They used to have a great big list of journals and books, but I don't see it anymore. Is that why you believe the claim fails verification? ~Anachronist (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi. The claim was "HighWire Press hosts the largest repository of peer-reviewed content, with over 3500 journals from scholarly publishers". If they now say their platform "supports over 3000 journals, books, reference works, and proceedings", it sounds like it no longer hosts over 3500 journals (excluding other works). Some publishers have left HighWire in recent times, so I believe the number is dropping. Also, the claim to be the largest repository of peer-reviewed content needs a reference, preferably an independent one. By the way, the page cited was https://highwirepress.com, not https://www.highwirepress.com/about-us. I certainly have no objection to reliably sourced, up-to-date info about their scope being added, but as more publishers leave, it is a changing figure. Nurg (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Premier House
Hi Nurg, I was taught a comma was superfluous before a conjunction. Were you taught different? This is a genuine question. I do on occasion remove a lot of commas from some additions to Wikipedia. I guess it depends on usages in the author's home region. This being my home region I thought i'd better ask. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think a comma is sometimes good before a conjunction, and sometimes superfluous. And you're right, there are different styles. Can you quote the bit of the sentence(s) where you think one is superfluous, and I'll see if I agree with you. Nurg (talk) 05:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you? You have provided perfect examples of what I am er, commenting on. You must speak this way, is that right? Very awkward. Eddaido (talk) 05:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Take care when adding categories to templates
I noticed you added to Sub judice and Contempt New Zealand. Please be sure to wrap categories on templates in  tags to prevent pages transcluding the template from being categorized (see for more details). I've wrapped it in the tags. Happy wiki editing! eπi ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 15:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Move 'Red Gum' to 'Red gum'
I have requested at Requested moves/Technical requests that the disambiguation page Red Gum be moved to Red gum, as most of the pages disambiguated are not proper names requiring Upper Case. I assume this is uncontroversial, but if you object for any reason, you can move the request to the 'Controversial requests' section. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 09:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society
Dear ,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. &#x200B;

Best regards, Urhixidur (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

2011 earthquakes
Don't worry Nurg, it doesn't take much to confuse me. Mikenorton (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikivoyages
Hi. I would like to start contributing to Wikivoyages pages related to Malta. Any handy tips before I start tackling the process? Thanks for your time. Angie Balzan (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I replied at User talk:Angie Balzan. Nurg (talk) 10:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Mangatainoka River Seventy Mile Bush
Puzzled by your recent edit. What is your thinking behind it? Regards, Eddaido (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I edited several parts of it. Which particular bits are you puzzled by? Nurg (talk) 02:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You were so fast I didn't see your response.
 * Aside from your stilted re-phrasing of my English in the two related items you changed the caption to "The Mangatainoka River within Seventy Mile Bush" and I was wondering why you did that. I mean you thought it was a good idea? Why? Its misleading. Eddaido (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And besides the Tui Brewery is the brewery that was put there - you are adding misinformation with "now the . . ". Eddaido (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I corrected the spelling from Mangatainoko to Mangatainoka in the caption. Other than that, would you prefer reverting to a comma in the caption, i.e. "The Mangatainoka River, Seventy Mile Bush"?
 * When the brewery was established in 1889, it was not called the Tui Brewery. According to some accounts, it was called the Wagstaff Brewery. At some point quite early on it was named the "North Island Brewery". It appears it was not named the Tui Brewery until 1922 or 1923, the name being taken from its Tui brand beer, which it had brewed since at least 1907. Nurg (talk) 09:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

New Zealand districts
I have produced a list of districts in New Zealand that don't have articles here at User:Crouch, Swale/New Zealand districts. Similar to User:Crouch, Swale/District split it might be possible to add more details about the merits of splitting such as when formed, other settlements and relative population/area to settlement. who also participated in the Commons CFD.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

RfA 2021 review update
Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, and.

The following had consensus support of participating editors:
 * 1) Corrosive RfA atmosphere
 * The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.
 * 1) Level of scrutiny
 * Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.
 * 1) Standards needed to pass keep rising
 * It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.
 * 1) Too few candidates
 * There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.
 * 1) "No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins

The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors: 1. Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere) Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.

2. Admin permissions and unbundling There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.

3. RfA should not be the only road to adminship Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.

Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1. There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

my subscription
One very quick message -- trouble, sometimes, arguing my personal problem and the same problem that other people are having. I've been blocked. That's okay. In fact, it subtracts one obligation from my huge pile of computer stuff. I wanted to ask about everybody else out there -- usernames, subscriptions, non-delivery, etc etc. 204.62.72.218 (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not experiencing any problem. Nurg (talk) 03:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

"Te Ao Maori" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Te Ao Maori. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 20 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.

Kia ora Nurg, as the only (human) editor of this redirect up until now I figured it'd be worth reaching out to you. Mainly wanting to have a chat about whether Māori people is the best target given that te ao Māori is a bit distinct from the people, but I've got more info on the Rfd page if you feel like checking it out. Turnagra (talk) 05:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

RFA 2021 Completed
The 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ideas were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular, , and for closing the most difficult conversations and for  for closing the review of one of the closes.

The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:
 * 1) Revision of standard question 1 to Special thanks to  for help with implementation.
 * 2) A new process, Administrative Action Review (XRV) designed to review if an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy in a process similar to that of deletion review and move review. Thanks to all the editors who contributed (and are continuing to contribute) to the discussion of how to implement this proposal.
 * 3) Removal of autopatrol from the administrator's toolkit. Special thanks to and  for their help with implementation.

The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:
 * 1) An option for people to run for temporary adminship ( proposal, discussion, & close )
 * 2) An optional election process ( proposal & discussion and close review & re-close )

Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at RFA's talk page or an appropriate village pump.

A final and huge thanks all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months. This is the final update with no further talk page messages planned. 01:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi

 * Hello. Can you write this article in English and improve it and add more sections? The Russian Wikipedia is biased against Chechens and their struggle for freedom from Russia, articles are deleted. If this article were available in other Wikipedia sections and in other languages, it would be left in the Russian Wikipedia. https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A7%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B6%D0%B0%D1%85%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%8B_%D0%B2_%D0%A1%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8 25let (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The Sovereign Individual
Hello, on 3 July you edited the article for The Sovereign Individual by adding a "Self-contradictory" template referring to the talk page for further discussion. Yet, you have not written anything to the talk page. Could you please specify, asap on the talk page, what you mean by the article being "Self-contradictory", please? Thank you. Los Perros pueden Cocinar (talk) 11:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Fixed the issue. Sorry for the disturbance I may have caused, I didn't understand the reason why you had added the template in the first place, but I figured out that it was a problem with the dates and I have fixed the issue accordingly. No need to write on the talk page. Have a good day. --Los Perros pueden Cocinar (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Surname categories
Hello, Nurg,

I hope 2023 is starting off well for you. I just wanted to suggest that rather than emptying out categories, please consider nominating them for consideration for deletion, merger or renaming at Categories for Discussion. There happen to be a number of surname categories being discussed recently and since categories exist in a hierarchy, it can be helpful to consider changing them as a group rather than dealing with them category-by-category. Thank you and please have a pleasant weekend! Liz Read! Talk! 19:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Liz. Comment noted. I also note though, there's a difference between removing pages that are miscategorised (which may result in an empty cat) versus removing articles that are categorised ok but the category itself is questionable. I have been dealing with the 1st case. I'm yet to deal with the 2nd case, where I would proceed as you suggest. Nurg (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Support for improving Draft:Jason Connor
Hi, thanks for helping out with the draft article. I have provided some support to User:6fourcollective to help with improvements to Draft:Jason Connor, and to explain licensing issues wih photos. See our exchanges on the talk page User talk:6fourcollective. I think that with time and effort, this user will be able to get the article to a stage where it can be accepted, but it has a way to go at present. Please chip in if you wish. :) Marshelec (talk) 09:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I haven't looked at the article very closely and don't really have an opinion on it. I've just done some slapdash improvements to help out a bit. Nurg (talk) 09:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Other British monarch requested move discussions currently taking place
Since you recently participated in the Charles III requested move discussion, I thought you might like to know that there are two other discussions currently going on about other British monarch article titles here and here. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Cranbrie
Hey mate, I saw that your requested entry on Wiktionary was deleted by mistake along with the others, so I found citations for it. I also wrote an entry, but I am unable to submit it because I am banned over there for using the same VPN as someone else.

Noun

 * 1) Brie and cranberry sauce or cranberries as ingredients in a foodstuff.

Cheers! Enix150 (talk) 18:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Want to help expand?
Hi!

I’ve recently created the article 9th Strategic Reserve Corps. If you’re interested, I’d welcome help expanding or improving it.

Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 10:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Parentheses around zoological authority
Thanks for taking care of the speciesbox on Waitaha penguin. I saw your question in the edit history. Author citation (zoology) - in the Ranks matters section - says, “The parentheses around the author citation indicate that this was not the original taxonomic placement.” So it would seem that you ought to include parentheses around the authority for Megadyptes antipodes waitaha. Important note: All of the relevant examples in Author citation (zoology) involve moving a species to a different genus. I’m just presuming that the rule would be similar for lower-level taxonomic changes. Columbianmammoth (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's very helpful. I have added parentheses in the taxobox. Nurg (talk) 01:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:


 * Proposal 2, initiated by, provides for the addition of a text box at Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
 * Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by and, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
 * Proposal 5, initiated by, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
 * Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
 * Proposal 7, initiated by, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
 * Proposal 9b, initiated by, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
 * Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by, , and , respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
 * Proposal 13, initiated by, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
 * Proposal 14, initiated by, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
 * Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by and, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
 * Proposal 16e, initiated by, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
 * Proposal 17, initiated by, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
 * Proposal 18, initiated by, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
 * Proposal 24, initiated by, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
 * Proposal 25, initiated by, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
 * Proposal 27, initiated by, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
 * Proposal 28, initiated by, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins
Hi there! Phase I of the Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
 * Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
 * Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
 * Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
 * Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
 * Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
 * Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
 * Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

Subsection name
Hi. Following your edit here to Franklin Bulls altering the subsection name of "The Start of something new coming straight out of Pukekohe" to "Establishment", it has since been changed back to a non-neutral tone. Are you able to contribute again or revert the change? Thanks. DaHuzyBru (talk) 08:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I won't do anything right now, but I will see. Nurg (talk) 02:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)