User talk:Yaksar/Archive 7

Luhansk
Hello Yaksar!

I noticed that you reverted my edit on the article Luhansk. The geopolitics of that article had obviously become controversial following the events of 2014. Luhansk isn't the only city like that, as there are many many cities in the world which are located on contended territories. I would like to welcome you to participate in the discussion on the talk page, located at Talk:Luhansk. Heptor (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for the message. Definitely recommend starting a new discussion on the talk page if you'd like to make this shift rather than as part of a separate proposal of 2017. Happy to discuss there, but the short of it is that none of the similar articles from the ongoing Ukraine conflict are designed in similar ways, and to do it this way would be inconsistent and certainly require a broader discussion.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Danbury
I have fixed the links in the mainspace for Danbury and over a quarter of them were meant for a different Danbury, see User:Crouch, Swale/NC v PT. While I don't think lots of incoming links are a necessarily a good sign of a primary topic the number of incorrect ones can be. Notice that in the case of Kenton, 2 were for the pop 237 Kenton, Suffolk village but only 1 was for the 8,195 Kenton, Ohio city which is also a county seat and thus clearly much more important. Do you see how the USPLACE arguments do hold water up to a point due to readers and editors being used to seeing them including the state, the fact that the Suffolk village got more than the Ohio city is telling. Also WP:PLURALPT gives an example of Walls being a DAB despite the structure clearly being far more significant.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 13:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing the links! The US place point still doesn't negate anything though -- just because a city is referred to with the state name included does not mean it can't also be the primary for the name wihtout. Not sure how these other examples are relevant though.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The US place point can and does affect the "usage" criteria, most readers and editors will quickly work out that most US places have the state included and its claimed that adding the state is common usage (unlike other countries where its just purely for disambiguation). We have to remember that most readers have probably used WP before and will have some idea of its NC. That said given PT#2 you might be able to argue that the Connecticut city meets that. I'd point out that Sydenham which I started a RM at the same time had around 250 mainspace links and only around 5 were for something else (such as the NZ suburb or one of the Australian places) and I don't think Hayfield has many incorrect links. See this point for example of a topic that gets 243x the views of the other plural topics, even if we assumed 90% used the singular the facial expression would still be easily the most common target, not the case for Danbury if we assume 90% use the "City, State" search.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 08:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a delayed response, so apologies Crouch, Swale . But again, that (most) US cities are included on pages including their state name does not mean they should not be considered among potential topics for the primary topic for a term -- as is the case with Danbury or Albuquerque.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right that they should be considered when taking into account primary topics but a similar logic to plurals can be applied namely Because readers and editors are used to seeing titles at the singular form, and can be expected to search for them/link to them in the singular form given that you opposed to moving Peanuts despite Peanut being more important (and about twice as popular!!!). In other words because nearly all US cities include the state readers and editors can be expected to search for them that way. And yes this came up with Durham, Worcester, Plymouth and Bayonne where people were arguing primacy for another topic due to USPLACE, similar to Peanuts.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 09:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm late, but given that a Google Books search for "Danbury us" brings up pretty much entirely the US city, it seems incorrect to say that people using the name of the city without the state are not referring to the city.--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks, Found5dollar! I've found that the best approach for moves that can often get needlessly heated is to front load the nomination with as much straightforward information to answer any likely concerns or rebuttals. That way you can keep the focus on provable facts and avoid descending into the battles of gut feeling that pretty much will never actually have a consensus.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * would you say Lewis is another even better example that had numerous proposals to rename and numerous comments about it but finally it was moved (2 years ago). In the case of Worcester the argument can probably be made that the English city is the best choice given the fact that readers might expect the US city to have the state included and the fact its the original and a county town but the argument can certainly be made that that's not strong enough to make it the overwhelming most common topic. In the case of Lewis other uses are significantly more common (at least in everyday speech) such as the given name which as someone in England would say is overwhelmingly the most common usage (the surname maybe a few percentage) but the place in Scotland is practically unheard of here. How anybody could have opposed to that move is beyond me.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 20:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Accented Rubén Ramos
The musician is also known with the accented version (Grammy Award for Best Tejano Album), so based on the stats you gave in the RM discussion, I pointed it to him as well. Either way. And also thank you for your RM discussion participation; it's nice to come to one with that kind of information included in the !vote rationales. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, I had missed that, thanks for pointing out! And yes, of course -- too often primary topic discussions seem to be either "I think there is one" or "I think there is not," which is fine and all but not super helpful if we can look at actual stats and evidence.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Repeated debates
Its interesting how these arguments about both titles and primacy keep on coming up. While its true that no one other than me appears to have made the PLURALPT argument with US places that might partly be because we haven't had many USPLACE debates involving primacy in the last few years. I would note though that this logic was used in the 2014 RM for Worcester and that Talk:Bellingham was successful.

In terms of the titles of the articles I'd note that there is a discussion at Talk:Amouli and a recently closed discussion at Talk:Futiga (that I contested at RMT). I'd note that I don't really think always using the state is needed but given so many Americans think it is that does suggest its more common with than without (see my comments in this RM).

The other thing that has been repeatedly debated is Scottish island names. See this from 2010/11, then this RM in 2012 and now the debate at Talk:Isle of Gigha.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for flagging all these! Definitely seems to be a few different issues at play though. I feel like at heart of a lot of location title disputes are debates between what the word of a policy says vs. what the purpose of it is. Like with USPlace, the purpose of having a sort of standard format to address disambiguation issues makes sense but doesn't really address the straightforward argument that, say, Nashville is no different from Toronto in most commonly being referred to by name alone, in addition to being a clear primary topic. So the American Samoa discussions are interesting -- if US Place isn't mandated for territories, and by all other policies we would make it the city name alone vs the state, it seems a tougher sell to say the policy must apply.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW the new Amouli discussion has been speedily closed with the suggestion to discuss in a wider venue. I would agree all other policies do suggest using the city name alone (which would also apply to Nashville if USPLACE didn't state it does need the state) but the only difference is that its not clear if USPLACE applies.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 21:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems like a mess! But a general rule of thumb I would probably use for myself is that, if the only reason a policy applies is because the policy exists, and if other policy would say otherwise, it might be time to question if that policy is being used right in the first place!--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes User:Born2cycle has been arguing this for the last ~14 years on this project.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 09:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Kiev RM
Just fyi, I transferred your "Support" rationale to the Talk:Kiev section.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 00:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, User:Paine Ellsworth.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Why
Please stop edit warring. You are the only person that has a problem with the wording, so it seems like you need to gather consensus for your change on the talk page. I also don't understand how you find a dictionary term non-neutral.


 * smear campaign: smear cam·paign /smi(ə)r kamˈpān/ noun a plan to discredit a public figure by making false or dubious accusations.

This is not a loaded term, even if you perceive it that way. Please take a look at some sources, it really is the only term used to describe this act of discrediting a politician with fake accusations. Any attempt to remove this just reads as POV pushing, watering it down based on personal biases. ɱ (talk) 01:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You've now been reverted by three different users, so please stop remaking the edit in question. Thank you for now opening this on the talk page of the article. We should keep that discussion there.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Please help with usability testing
Hello! The Anti-Harassment Tools team is running a usability test to find out how and where IP addresses are used when patrolling wikis, particularly when patrolling RecentChanges. This could include New Pages or RecentChanges patrol. We want to see your patrolling process and get your views on some prototypes. Getting your perspective would be really helpful to us at this stage of the process. If you’d like to help, and have 30 minutes to spare, please fill out this Google form with your details: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfjYyRNGMkO4_TdNOgG4qmK9cp9YOKzM4GFO5pTd_bEcu23YQ/viewform

For the purpose of the tests we’ll be using Google Forms for recruitment, and UserTesting.com to conduct the actual tests. Please review the privacy statement and release form in https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ijmwrIoNO0W1p_zfFU1LBf3_6mFF53kUUFy1L_DCUKc (Google docs link)

Thank you,

NKohli (WMF) (talk) and PSaxena (WMF) (talk)  03:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Removal of Roman Protasevich's embedded history with the Azov Battalion is unwarranted
While it may seem uncontroversial here, Roman has a history of aligning himself with ultra nationalists. It is verifiable that he was in Ukraine in 2014 per his own social media and his photojournalist credentials show that he has been documenting Azov activities. The source is reliable as well. Scrubbing the content doesn't fit the guidelines, as not only is the claim not exceptional, it is within character.
 * Appreciate the response, although I'd suggest keeping the discussion to the relevant talk page. I would note that there seems to be an ongoing debate on the verifiability and credibility of these claims, and it would be wise to see how that shakes out.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Got it. Will do — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zerkcs (talk • contribs)

Erroneous revert: Rio Grande DAB, 28 July 2021
Hello fellow wikipedian,

Thank you for your good faith edits on the Rio Grande Valley and Rio Grande Valley (disambiguation) Wikipedia articles. Unfortunately, this action undid an edit that was discussed at Talk: Lower Rio Grande Valley. This discussion was for:

AND
 * Rio Grande Valley → Rio Grande Valley (Texas) or Lower Rio Grande Valley (Texas)
 * Rio Grande Valley (disambiguation) → Rio Grande Valley

The erroneous edits have been reverted. In the future, please use the article talk page to discuss before moving pages.

Thank you, stay healthy, and happy editing, Kehkou (talk) 04:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Kekhou -- I have asked the closing admin for clarification, as they appear to have only determined consensus for the page move but not that there is a dab move needed as well. Regardless, please be carefully not to simply cut and paste to make moves.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

"Apostolic Catholic Church" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Apostolic Catholic Church and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 26 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)