User talk:Amakuru/Archive 39

Hello Amakuru, I noticed that you recently closed the [move discussion] for moving Syrian revolution to Syrian Revolution. You closed the decision as not moved because you believe that reliable sources do not consistently capitalize the phrase. However, this is where WP:NCCAPS comes into play. Evaluating consensus can be difficult when multiple policies intersect. In addition, the capitalized form Syrian Revolution is becoming increasingly common in reliable sources, and the argument for capitalization is strong. The vote was 12 to 5; although Wikipedia is not a vote, if the strength of the arguments is comparable then we should probably relist; Mast303 (talk) 00:37, 28 March 2025 (UTC) PS: You did not even close it as "no consensus";

@Mast303: thanks for your message. I'm aware that there were quite a few editors in support of the move at the article you mention, which is why I took care to write a detailed summary giving the reasons for the close. Hopefully you've read that and can understand from a policy point of view where this is coming from. Put simply, there was very little in the "support" comments that aligned with our well-established policies and guidelines in this area; in particular the majority of comments which were either along the lines of "this is a proper name" without any further reasons as to why, or "sources commonly capitalise it" which did not address the fact that the guidance requires the uncapitalized form to be much less common than the capitalized form, something which was shown in the discussion to not be the case (generally the two forms run neck-and-neck). You mention that "this is where WP:NCCAPS comes into play", but NCCAPS clearly favours the current name, based on the evidence presented. "one should leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper name that would always occur capitalized, even mid-sentence" is the guideline. Also, you say "multiple policies intersect" but I'm not really sure what you mean by this; I don't know of any policies which favour the proposed title-case name, and the supporters did not AFAIK raise any such alternative policies. On your final point, you mention the numeric totals and strengths of arguments, but for the reasons given here and in my close statement, the strengths of arguments were not at all equal, hence why I found that as a Wikipedia consensus, there was consensus against the move and not even no consensus. I hope that makes some sense. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree with that closing a 12-5 vote in favor of the 5 votes is highly irregular and at odds with Wikipedia's definition of consensus. I would recommend you reread WP:NCCAPS and WP:NPOV when closing discussions and next time close a discussion according to the consensus reached. Since there was clearly a consensus in favor of Syrian Revolution, if we cannot resolve the matter here we must follow the process according to WP:Move review. --Plumber (talk) 00:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I think that there was a (weak) consensus in favor of the capitalized form Syrian Revolution. I may open a move review. Mast303 (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Again, the only way you could interpret it as there being a consensus to move is if you think that consensus is formed by voting rather than strength of arguments. WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS are crystal clear that only terms capitalised in a substantial majority of sources or "would always occur capitalised even mid-sentence" are capitalised, that has been the sitewide guideline for many many years. The ngrams presented in the discussion demonstrate without any doubt that the bar isn't met. The two titles are neck-and-neck, no substantial majority in sight. It's rare to get a case where the majority of commenters make an argument that can be unambiguously refuted, but this is one of them. You're welcome to take the matter to move review of course, and perhaps if sympathetic people who like to count heads rather than study the evidence attend the move review you might even be successful in getting it listed as "no consensus" instead of "consensus against", but either way I don't see any way the page will be moved at this time.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Template:Use Tanzanian English has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:33, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Quick facts

story · music · places

Close

Thank you for page moves to better titles, - what do you think about Enrique Matiz - see talk. Also: I have an article in prep 4 with a hook that I believe is poor, for one of the greatest opera singers of the 20th century. What do you think? It was forced into prep while I travelled over the weekend. I talked to the promoter, to no avail, and have found talking to the reviewer simply impossible (see nom), - we don't speak the same language. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: happy new month to you! I've moved the article to Enrique Bátiz per the discussion, that seems fairly clear cut per my comment there. Regarding the DYK nom, I've tried to take a dispassionate look at it given that I'd consider you a friend and you're always kind to me, but also trying to be objective. In any case, I'm a little puzzled by what's happened - while I can agree that the originally-proposed hook most likely wouldn't be interesting to a broad audience, I do think ALT2c would have been a good compromise hook. To me it satisfies those who think opera roles are boring with the nod to the "wet nurse" story, while also extending the Pavarotti link to the more substantive connection that they appeared together in the opera. Given that ALT2c was twice signed off by a reviewer who also praised it as a compromise, I'm not sure why it was then unilaterally vetoed by someone else.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for looking. I still believe that the original hook, modified by 4meter4, was better because - opera or not - it speaks of a woman who portrayed the same role believably for four decades, even on the biggest stage (which even people not knowing much about opera may know). She is an achiever. In the current hook, she is an unqualified "opera singer", and passive to some coincidence. I think we - Wikipedia - should better portray women as active. - The veto came because it's not in the article, - I was travelling! When I arrived home, it was already in prep. The veto also came because N. doesn't understand that characters such as Carmen and Mimi can raise curiosity, and carry a lot of information, so precision, + good stories. "Opera singer" is just horribly unspecific, and then for a prima donna (which to say would be too unspecific for my taste). No DYK is better than that one. But how to bring that across? Today is the birthday of Fausta Labia who had a DYK to my liking in 2022. I guess I make her my story and leave the RD for tomorrow ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I added the fact to the article and requested on dyktalk to replace the hook or better bring it pictured in a later set. (I have a different story on 8 April in mind, also have a hook in prep 3 which seems too close for similar topics.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:28, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth, in the end I was becoming more open to ALT2c, the main issue why I rejected it was because the issue had not been addressed yet. It's now addressed, so ALT2c is technically okay now. However, I still think that ALT2c is not the best wording possible; I responded on WT:DYK on feedback on how the wording could be improved. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your help there. - Tout est lumière. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

No worries, and thanks for the "all is light" link. Are we the first language to have an article on that work?!  — Amakuru (talk) 11:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes. It was my centenary present for Ravel: singing of spring and light ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

today: a woman in red --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

On top of two entries for Roberto among the recent deaths, brainstorming for Easter music is going on in the nom, at the end - ALT0e/f/g/h - if you have little time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Next problem: WT:DYK#Good Friday. After I heard Bach's St John Passion yesterday (see music), it occurred to me that I missed the work in prep, by a great woman inspired by it. - ALTs for the other run to m now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Check out my talk: for that great woman's Johannes-Passion (listen!), our music in detail, and three people who recently died and are on the main page (where she isn't). My call for collaboration has the first "no". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

What do you think of this Easter vs. 1 April discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:21, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Nothing happened. - My story is about music that Bach and Picander gave the world 300 years (and 19 days) ago, - listen (on the conductor's birthday) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: apologies, I have been away so not able to look at this, returning home tomorrow. Wishing you a very happy Easter.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, and the next cantata made but is now also discussed at the same place, - it should be discussed on WT:OTD some day. Listen now ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I wrote my story today and then found it's the person's funeral day. - I hated to see DYK for Johannes-Passion (Gubaidulina) today instead of Good Friday, but it seems also right in the context. - I have Peter Ablinger marked ready on the last day on WP:ITNN, - could you perhaps help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I finally managed to upload the pics I meant for Easter, see places. - Also finally, I managed a FAC, Easter Oratorio. I wanted that on the main page for Easter Sunday, but no, twice. You are invited to join a discussion about what "On this day" means, day or date. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda Arendt I will have a look later. I have been a bit unwell this week, but had a good holiday in Egypt last week... I will upload some pics shortly!  — Amakuru (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, and best wished for your health! - My music features Bach Bach Bach today ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:23, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a Move review of Syrian revolution. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review.

Regarding your comment about my undiscussed move---see my formal move discussion on the talk page AudreyExplores (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

@AudreyExplores: thanks for letting me know.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2025).

Administrator changes

• Giraffer
• Goldsztajn

Dennis Brown

• Cyclonebiskit
• Nohat
• Someguy1221

Bureaucrat changes

Barkeep49

CheckUser changes

0xDeadbeef

Oversighter changes

GB fan

Moneytrees

Miscellaneous

• Sign up for The Core Contest, a competition running from 15 April to 31 May to improve vital articles.

Thanks for your work on Sidney Wood. However, I don't think you noticed that Sidney Wood (the tennis player) is NEVER referred to as "Sid Wood", unlike the footballer, hence why Sid Wood (footballer) should be changed to Sid Wood... there's no need for the extra disambiguation as there's no other article for a subject titled "Sid Wood" on Wikipedia.

Kind regards. Barr Theo (talk) 12:32, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

May I kindly ask, why you moved the Ghulam Kadir page? The change in spelling was quite recently discussed on the talk page and the editor pushing for the move was not able no establish consensus for the move. Best wishes! WatkynBassett (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

@WatkynBassett: I do apologise, I saw the request at WP:RM/TR and looked at it on its merits alone, with the ngram appearing to show fairly clear evidence of WP:COMMONNAME, so I thought it uncontroversial. I hadn't realised the same editor had attempted to move it through RM/TR previously and that the subsequent move request on the talk page had no consensus. I think based on the sources it probably should be moved, but of course due process should be followed. I have moved the page back for now, hope that's OK. PS - how's Madeline Bassett doing?  — Amakuru (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Sorry for my very late reply, life got in my way. I apprciate your careful explanation and resolution of this issue. Should the discussion of the correct name of the article continue, I would really appreciate your thoughtful input. – Madeline is doing fine, but someone stole my beloved cow creamer and I am deeply upset. WatkynBassett (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello Amakuru, I was wondering if you would be able to change the queue position of some of the articles in Queue 5 right now. I nominated a religious building for DYK, and it is running directly next to an article that is pornographic in nature. This seems like an oversight, and it seems almost brazen to run them together, as the building in question is considered to be sacred. Would you be willing to change the positioning of the DYK nomination related to Robert Van Damme (even just moving him further down on the DYK slot for that day, or to a different timeslot), or swap the DYK article on the St. George Utah Temple to a different day/spot? Itsetsyoufree32 (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Itsetsyoufree32: and thanks for the message. I've  Done that for you and swapped to Queue 4, as it seems a reasonable request and no other downsides really. If someone objects then we may need to discuss further at WT:DYK, but for now that's OK. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Wishing Amakuru a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@CAPTAIN RAJU, Randompersonediting, DaniloDaysOfOurLives, and Worgisbor: a belated thank you to all of you for the adminship anniversary wishes, much appreciated. Is it really nine years already?! All the best  — Amakuru (talk) 23:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello Amakuru. I see you just closed the RMs at Bringelly and Cobbitty. I wonder if you read the note directing you to Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#Requested moves per WP:NCAUST and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? There has been considerable discussion about these RMs and a conflict between the conventions at WP:NCAUST and Wikiproject Australia. Innesw is in the process of raising an RfC to get clarity on this matter. At the moment, there have been several of these bulk RMs and they have had varying outcomes - some were withdrawn, some were procedurally closed, others were moved (see Talk:Adelaide Lead, Talk:Ellis Lane, Talk:Adams Estate, Victoria). Unfortunately, due to the sheer number of articles, it has been difficult to catch them all and make appropriate comment, but the these mixed results have been detrimental, meaning that there is a great deal in inconsistency in Australian place article names. For my part, I should have made clear than since my original comment on Cobbitty, I no longer support moving the rest of the articles. There was historical consensus to use Name, State/Territory which has recently been overlooked in interpretation of NCAUST mainly by newer editors, thus we need to establish an updated consensus before pushing these through. I ask you to reconsider the outcomes as procedural closes unt there has been a proper RfC and I want to make it clear that I have withdrawn any support for moving I may have expressed in the discussions. Thank you. Dfadden (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Dfadden: thanks for your note. First of all, I will say up front that I'm not minded to overturn the decisions on these RMs. Once one or two individual cases were removed from consideration, where editors had expressed doubt, the consensus within those discussions was clear, and that applies whether or not your initial !vote to support was considered or not. This RM was in the backlog, it had a consensus to move those articles including votes in the past few days, so I moved them. Secondly, on the merits of your objection to the moves, I don't really see any evidence that would lead me to think the guidelines haven't been followed. As things stand, WP:NCAUST remains in place, and the !votes to move the articles were made with that in mind. Australian places may occupy the base names if they are primary topic. You mention a "historical consensus", but where is that codified? Can you give me a link to where that "consensus" is to be found? Looking at it from an admin point of view, I'm not going to consider vague statements of historical consensus, all I see is the above guideline, which allows editors to omit the statename. There are large numbers of Australian settlements that have been at names without states for many years, including (to name just a few) Gobarralong, Balranald, Junee, Golden Gully. We aren't suddenly creating a huge inconsistency by moving these ones that have been nominated. Finally, on the subject of the discussion at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board, I have looked at that and it seems there are some strong views on both sides, but such a discussion on a WikiProject page is not at this stage binding, or indeed any reason not to close the RMs that are ongoing. On that topic I would refer you back to the excellent reply given to you at User talk:2pou. In particular, 2pou makes the point that "Moves are easy to adjust" and "should a good consensus develop for NCAUST, these can always be modified again citing the newly established consensus". All of the moves I've made today can be reversed if the need arises, but for now we follow the consensus. If you wish to change the guideline, you'll need to open a neutrally worded RFC on the topic at the guideline page Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names), or perhaps even at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and then let the community decide if the guideline is to be amended. Until that happens and an alternative consensus forms, we work with the current status quo and consensus in the discussions. If the guideline is changed, we'll revisit the RMs. I hope that makes some sense. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I understand your position and I do concede that I cannot point to a particular policy that codifies the historical consensus - I do understand though, it was agreed upon within the Wikiproject prior to NCAUST being included in the MOS. 10-12 years ago, when i started creating articles I was encouraged by very experienced editors in WP:AUSTRALIA to always use the name, state format. There are many links in the discussion on the WP talk page that show if not policy, it was at least a long standing convention and there has been conflict between this convention and the vague wording of NCAUST for at least 15 years! Certainly contentious, and ongoing (as you said, there was recent activity on this RM since the talkpage discussion started, and another editor currently in the process of raising an RfC). Thus, the close immediately struck me one that might have been delayed or closed to be relisted as there is no WP:DEADLINE. But I also concede I am very involved at this point, so I expect you'll take my words with a grain of salt!

I do also understand your assertion that current policy is current policy (even if it is disputed) and as an admin you must apply it as such. Fair enough. I also appreciate that it is not difficult to rename articles should consensus emerge to revert the moves. But if that would involve raising requests to move them again citing any potential new consensus, who is actually responsible for doing that? In the last month, there have already been hundreds nominated for moves, with various outcomes - who is keeping track of them all? I'd be greatful for any wisdom you might have on how similar situations have been handled in the past to put my mind at ease! Cheers. 13:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC) Dfadden (talk) 13:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2023 EFL League One play-off final, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page EFL.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

The second round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 28 April at 23:59 UTC. To reiterate what we said in the previous newsletter, we are no longer disqualifying contestants based on how many points (now known as round points) they received. Instead, the contestants with the highest round-point totals now receive tournament points at the end of each round. These tournament points are carried over between rounds, and can only be earned if a competitor is among the top 16 round-point scorers at the end of each round. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far. Everyone who competed in round 2 will advance to round 3 unless they have withdrawn or been banned.

Round 2 was quite competitive. Four contestants scored more than 1,000 round points, and eight scored more than 500 points (including one who has withdrawn). The following competitors scored at least 800 points:

• BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 1,233 round points from 24 good articles, 28 Did you know articles, and one In the news nomination, mainly about athletes and politicians
• Thebiguglyalien (submissions) with 1,127 round points, almost entirely from two high-multiplier featured articles on Black Widow (Natasha Romanova) and Grace Coolidge, in addition to two GAs and two reviews
• History6042 (submissions) with 1,088 round points from four featured lists about Michelin-starred restaurants, nine good articles and a good topic mostly on Olympic-related subjects, seven ITN articles, and dozens of reviews
• Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1,085 round points from three FAs, one GA, and four DYKs on military history, as well as 18 reviews
• Arconning (submissions) with 887 round points, mostly from four FLs, six GAs, and seven DYKs on Olympic topics, along with more than two dozen reviews

In addition, we would like to recognize Generalissima (submissions) for her efforts; she scored 801 round points but withdrew before the end of the round.

The full scores for round 2 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 13 featured articles, 20 featured lists, 4 featured-topic articles, 138 good articles, 7 good-topic articles, and more than 100 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 19 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 300 reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed in Round 3. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)