User talk:Amakuru

Quick facts

story · music · places

Close

Aribert Reimann's 90th birthday, with a hook mentioning his 80ths, the opera played by Oper Frankfurt after he died, see video, and I was there. - Ruta de los Volcanes is among the latest places. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Good to remember Reimann on his birthday, and nice pics of the La Palma as ever... very dramatic hiking location  — Amakuru (talk) 12:49, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Dramatic indeed, trying a trail and missing where it continues, and trying again the other way round and missing it again ;) - I have the usual problem of being late with a RD nom, for Bernard Rands, - can you perhaps take a look. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

It was too late, I will have to write about his compositions. - Of the four topics I helped to bring to the main page, I'm most proud of a woman's work, so made it my story. As it happens, last year's story OTD was about the woman. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you sooo much for the rescue to RD! - on Bach's birthday, a story about my joy --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:29, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

more Bach in story and music on Palm Sunday, imagine: four Easter cantatas in today's concert, and more places in Cyprus! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Morning @Gerda Arendt:, sorry for delayed reply and you're welcome re the Rands RD - I'm glad I could help, it seemed rather unfair that RDs with apparently no problems simply fell off the bottom without action. I probably need to check for this more often if the regular admins are missing them. Thanks for the stories for Palm Sunday... I can't believe we're already at that point in 2026 already, feels like we were only just celebrating the new year! And you're off on your travels again with more idyllic scenery and food! Is Cyprus similar to La Palma or quite different? Anyway, all the best for the upcoming holy week and I look forward to seeing more of your interesting work.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:17, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, and never a need to respond fast ;) - listening to that music was wonderful, and then performed by an ensemble I have loved from 2002 (when they stepped in for the Chanticleer here where last year had Andreas Scholl and Tamar Halperin, and this year Voces8 are announced). Andreas Scholl and his sister were the soloists in my first St. Matthew Passion in Idstein, and I won't forget. My position in the choir was quite close to them, and it was thrilling. The reviewer wrote practically about nothing else than the two ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Amakuru! You recently reverted my move of Russian anti-LGBTQ law to Anti-LGBTQ law in Russia for consistency with LGBTQ rights in Russia on the basis that my move contradicts a requested move on the article talk page, but this is actually not the case as the requested move on the article talk page was from Russian anti-LGBT law to Russian anti-LGBTQ law for consistency with the general shift in abbreviation terminology from "LGBT" to "LGBTQ" on Wikipedia. Therefore, my move does not contradict that requested move in any way, and, indeed, ensures further compliance with the consistency in article titles policy. I assume in good faith that this is a simple misunderstanding. Justthefacts (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Justthefacts: and thanks for your note. Per the instructions and WP:RM, controversial move requests should go through a requested move process, and if a move is contested then it can be moved back to the previous stable title, which is what I've done, as I don't agree with the move you made. You mention consistency, but there was consistency before, but I now see that you also moved Georgian anti-LGBTQ law, Kazakh anti-LGBTQ law, Hungarian anti-LGBTQ law and Ghanaian anti-LGBTQ bill at the same time as the Russian one. I have reverted those moves too, so now the consistency is restored. You're welcome to start an RM discussion if you wish these to be moved, but personally I prefer the long-standing titles as they are more concise and clearer to read. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@Amakuru: You have misunderstood. The moves are for consistency with the articles titles for LGBTQ rights in Russia, LGBTQ rights in Ghana, LGBTQ rights in Hungary, and LGBTQ rights in Georgia (country). --Justthefacts (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah, well that's as may be, but those are different titles from the ones I mention above – I don't think LGBTQ rights is sufficiently similar to Anti-LGBTQ law that it's obvious they should adopt the same naming convention. Given that these titles have been stable in their current syntax for some time I'm still not seeing a pressing reason to change, and the moves are still controversial. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Amakuru: What I meant was that the moves are consistent with the "in [name of country]" title that is the standard title for all LGBTQ rights articles and also the standard title for any article about legal matters that pertains to laws in legal jurisdictions as laws always affect legal jurisdictions defined by territory. For example, a Canadian in Russia could be prosecuted under the anti-LGBTQ law in Russia, but a Russian in Canada could not be, as the law has a territorial affect, not a nationality affect, and apply to everyone physically present in a particular territory, regardless of nationality, but not to nationals in another territory. As such the title "Anti-LGBTQ law in Russia" makes more sense than "Russian anti-LGBTQ law". Moreover, the title "Anti-LGBTQ law in Russia" in consistent with all articles about both LGBT rights in particular and laws with territorial affect in legal jurisdictions in general. In consideration of the aforestated facts, would you reconsider? Cheers --Justthefacts (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Amakuru: How are you? Have you considered the titles in light of the facts above? Cheers --Justthefacts (talk) 20:28, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Justthefacts: I'm fine thanks, hope you are likewise. To be honest I still don't entirely agree - I still think Ghanaian anti-LGBTQ bill and Kazakh anti-LGBTQ law are better titles which describe the situation well. Like we'd say American law, not law in the United States, and you'd still expect it to apply to Canadians if they are in the US. But anyway, it's not really a matter I feel terribly strongly about, so I'm happy to withdraw my objection. I've remade the four moves in question. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Amakuru: I'm happy to hear that you're fine and you're welcome. I'm likewise and thank you. Actually, American law redirects to law of the United States. I agree with what you say that the law of the United States does "apply to Canadians if they are in the US" as you say and that is actually my point. The anti-LGBTQ law in Russia does apply to Canadians in Russia, because Canadians in Russia are subject to the law of Russia even though they are not Russians. On the other hand, the anti-LGBTQ law in Russia does not apply to Russians in Canada, because Russians in Canada are under the law of Canada. Also, Canadian law redirects to law of Canada and Russian law redirects to law of Russia. I'm happy to hear that you withdraw your objection and that you remade the four moves in question. This cordial discussion between us is an ideal model for how to handle to any disagreements on Wikipedia. I'm happy to have been able to engage so cordially with you on this. Cheers --Justthefacts (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

@Justthefacts: For what it's worth, I also preferred the long-standing titles, because they are about a specific piece of law, while these new ones imply multiple anti-LGBTQ laws' existence, and they seem to be about law (in general) against LGBTQ in a given country (this would belong in the LGBTQ rights articles). So I'd ask Amakuru to restore the original titles, and Justthefacts to start a discussion (maybe at WT:LGBT) about the moves if you want to continue this debate. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 14:12, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, @Kovcszaln6: The titles say law, not laws, so there is no necessary implication in that regard. On the other hand, consider the following: a Canadian in Russia can be prosecuted under the anti-LGBTQ law in Russia, but a Russian in Canada could not be, which is why the title "Anti-LGBTQ law in Russia" makes sense over "Russian anti-LGBTQ law", because the law applies to a territory, not a nationality. Regards, --Justthefacts (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken. Please see the definition of law (1.1.) and of Russian (1.) Kovcszaln6 (talk) 16:45, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

@Justthefacts: thanks for your kind words above and I'm glad we were able to enjoy cordial discussions for a time. However, since Kovcszaln6 wishes to challenge, and there are apparently unanswered questions here, I think it's time to sort this out formally through an RM discussion. I've reverted the pages back to their prior titles and would appreciate if you would now follow the instructions at WP:RM (assuming you wish to proceed) and we can also notify the LGBTQ project. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

There is plenty of time remaining to meet the goal of 26 new articles representing each letter of the alphabet, to be made in the year 2026. Let me know if you're looking for ideas. Cheers! BD2412 T 00:34, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@BD2412: yes, thanks for the reminder! Unfortunately real life is kind of getting in the way quite a lot, but we're still not quite a quarter of the way into the year so there's time on our side. I've added in a third out-of-sequence entry for K, so making slow progress!  — Amakuru (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Are you getting LLM vibes from the close review nom up at AN and their comments? Iseult ^Δx talk to me 15:05, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

The Core Contest—Wikipedia's most exciting contest—returns again this year from April 15 to May 31. The goal: to improve vital or other core articles, with a focus on those in the worst state of disrepair. Editing can be done individually, but in the past groups have also successfully competed. There is £300 of prize money divided among editors who provide the "best additive encyclopedic value". Signups are open now. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24.

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Sorry you didn't get one the first time around. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 21:25, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

@Phlogiston Enthusiast: thanks, much appreciated. 😁 I thought it was a nice gesture from you myself to thank everyone, but evidently others disagreed... Anyway, a big thank you to you too for your contributions to the project and happy editing  — Amakuru (talk) 21:41, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello Amakuru, I had it on my agenda to give you a Barnstar for being a great admin when I get back to my computer. Phlogiston Enthusiast has beaten me to it! Ah well, I might as well do it as well. Schwede66 23:42, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For being a great admin. Keep up the good work. Schwede66 23:43, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

@Schwede66: aww thanks, that's really nice and much appreciated. I hope I didn't appear too needy at the ANI thread. 😁 And while we're on the subject, you're doing a fantastic job yourself as ever, and very deserving of the recognition from Phlogiston Enthusiast too!  — Amakuru (talk) 10:25, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I have had a discussion today on the help desk regarding bolding the name's on articles such as that and others where someone else has reverted it and they said that it is correct per MOS:BOLDALTNAMES. You can find the discussion here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Is_bold_for_someone's_name_not_allowed_if_the_page_is_not_a_redirect? Also I understand that the page is about the event, but I don't see why that means her date of birth has to come first. There are plenty of pages on Wikipedia about killings, murders, disappearances, and similar cases, and they usually begin the section about the victim with their name, date of birth, and where they were born or grew up. I'm not sure why this page is the exception. I understand changing the order so the event information comes first and the personal details come second, but I don't understand reverting all the other edits that I made in good faith. ItsShandog (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @ItsShandog: I don't doubt that the edits were made in good faith to the article, but IMHO they were not improvements, for the reasons I mentioned in my edit summary. The focus of the article should be on the killing, which per WP:BLP1E and similar guidelines is the main notable point here. Ashling Murphy probably has achieved WP:GNG level notability simply because so much has been published about here since her death, but not of a sufficient level that we'd consider giving her her own page, and not such that we'd want to put her bio front and centre ahead of focusing on the killing. Putting her name in bold in the lead, and formatting the "Victim" section like a bio is distracting for readers IMHO because it isn't predominantly a bio page. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I understand the point about event‑based pages, but if bold in the lead is not correct for these kinds of articles, I don't understand why it is done consistently on so many other pages. Her name being in bold in the lead doesn't feel distracting to me, and you make a good point about the victim section and the rest of the structure. Yes, the event is focused on what happened to her and that is why she is notable, but the event is also about her, because she was the person killed. It's clear from the title that the page is not a biography, but it is still centred on her and what happened to her.

If we are unbolding here, I don't understand why this isn't being done across all similar pages for consistency. I've done significant work on this article before, including changing the lead wording so it wasn't written like a biography, and adjusting the lead to reflect the event. Her name was also bolded previously when the page was written more like a biography, and nothing was changed then. If this is going to be a rule about bolding, it seems like it should be applied more strictly across all pages of this type. It doesn't make much sense to treat this one differently from every other example I've seen. I would like to see examples of other event‑based pages where the name is not bolded, because this is the first time I've ever run into this issue.

If you didn't think my edits were an improvement, I don't understand why it wasn't taken to the talk page for consensus. That's normally what is expected when there's a disagreement, and it's what I would be told to do if I reverted someone else's edits.

Also, thank you for not doubting that the edits were made in good faith. I understand that you're an admin and know a lot more about Wikipedia than I do, but I'm just confused because I've been told so many different things, and it's hard for newer editors to know what is right or wrong. I really don't understand why such a big issue is being made over bold in the lead, though. ItsShandog (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

And it's also not that I have a strong opinion on it — you do make a fair point in some ways — but if I started unbolding names on any similar page now, it would almost certainly be reverted, and there would be a whole discussion about it where nobody would agree. I think this needs to be made into a wider discussion somewhere, so that if people do start unbolding and people disagree, they can be pointed to an existing consensus. I'm not sure if there has already been a discussion about this, or if you can direct me to one if it exists. ItsShandog (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

@ItsShandog: I can certainly understand the frustration on that point and I agree a wider discussion would be useful to settle this more consistently. I don't know of any such discussion. And to be clear, I'm not coming at this from an "I'm an admin and I must be right and you should do what I say" angle, nor do I really feel extremely strongly about it. I'm really just giving my thoughts on the question at hand the same as you are. For me the issue is simply that we usually bold when the article subject is directly mentioned in the lead, but we don't bold individual parts of the article title as that can give the wrong visual cue. I would !vote to apply such a standard across all such articles if I were given a choice. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Another admin is saying per MOS on the help desk that it is correct:

"It's not an application of the first sentence of BOLDALTNAMES, but the later bit (quoted by PrimeHunter above) certainly applies here. Given that the Azaria Chamberlain example is explicitly included in the MoS as good practice, I can't see what's different in (in particular) the Chloe Mitchell or Steven Cooper examples above. In both cases I think the MoS says to bold." ItsShandog (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

@ItsShandog: Right, so I see... well I suppose that settles it then and I have re-added the bold to the article. I really don't understand why it would be this way though, for the reasons I've outlined above. But hey ho! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi! You recently commented on Waar 2 regarding its draftification and suggested AfD might be appropriate. I have now nominated the article for deletion and its up for discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waar 2. Notifying you in case you are interested reviewing or commenting on the discussion. Thanks! Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Quick facts

story · music · places

Close

Happy Easter! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: thank you and a very happy Easter to you as well! I hope it was a good one.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

If you follow the link of Happy you can see that it was a good one. I'll remember the concert on Palm Sunday I heard, with four Easter cantatas, and will improve the article of the one for the third day (at Bach's time). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:32, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2026).

Administrator changes

• ARandomName123

• Biblioworm
• Causa sui
• Djsasso
• Espresso Addict
• Fenix down
• Firefangledfeathers
• GeneralNotability
• NawlinWiki
• Northamerica1000
• Smalljim

Checkuser changes

Giraffer

Oversight changes

Kj cheetham

Giraffer

Guideline and policy news

• The content of Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models has been updated following a request for comment. It now prohibits using LLMs to generate content, with exceptions for translation and copy-editing.

Arbitration

• Following a motion, the GSCASTE extended-confirmed restriction in the Indian military history case has been narrowed. It now applies to caste-related topics in South Asia, and the preemptive protection remedy has been amended accordingly.
• The arbitration case Pbsouthwood has been closed.
• The arbitration case Maghreb has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 7 April.