User talk:Bensci54
|
2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 |
Ferdinand VI move
[edit]Hi, Bensci54. Could you please explain to me (since you did not in your closure) how it is that you found no consensus to move at Talk:Ferdinand VI of Spain? Surtsicna (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- My original decision was based on that there were people on both the Support and Oppose sides that appeared to have policy backing them up, and there had been no discussion since Jan 3. However, looking at it again, taking into account what WP:NCROY actually says, I think it could be considered that there is consensus to move. WP:RMCI does say that policy has greater weight than !votes in a RM. I will update it to Moved. Thanks! Bensci54 (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the detailed explanation! Cheers, Surtsicna (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
I understand that Wikipedia isn't a democracy. But, a majority of editors did oppose the 'page move'. That being said, I realize this 'purge' (via NCROY) of the suffix "of country", will continue forward until it's removed from as many monarch bios titles as possible. PS - One wonders. What's the point of opening up such RMs, if their outcome is basically (via NCROY) pre-determined. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, indeed. I am just trying my best to follow procedures here. WP:RMCI indeed indicates:
Any move request that is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guideline and policy, unless there is a very good reason to ignore rules, should be closed without moving regardless of how many of the participants support it.
- So accordingly, I changed my closing to Move once I reviewed the convention at WP:NCROY. It does seem a bit like make-work that the RMs have to be created anyways, but per the instructions in WP:PCM, one of the criteria that prevents a bold move is "someone could reasonably disagree with the move," and clearly this is the case, given the large number of editors who always end up Opposing each of these moves. Bensci54 (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- Many years ago. I opposed the addition of diacritics to English Wikipedia (page titles, page content, templates, etc), but they're here & aren't going anywhere. So, that's basically (going forward) how I'll be viewing these 'monarch bio page name' RMs. It's too bad though, considering all the inconsistencies created, across many of these monarch bio page titles :( GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- I would aver that the recent change to NCROY does not have community consensus. It represents a local consensus. Also, it leads to absurdity. Now we have the utterly baffling combinatino of titles Ferdinand VI and Charles III, where the first is supposedly clear enough on its own but the primary topic for his successor's name + numeral is in fact a British king. Srnec (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- The recent change to NCROY was the result of a two-month-long RfC discussion involving dozens of editors on the talk page of that guideline. The closing editor noted that there was "a strong consensus" for the change. That change was explicitly intended to bring the guideline in line with the article titling policy. Lots of things may be said about it, but "local consensus" is rather misleading. Surtsicna (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Srnec: the recent RM result at Frederick IX of Denmark (sorry make that 'now' Frederik IX of Denmark), is yet another growing trend (this time) towards monarch page names being de-englished (examples: William I, German Emperor, Frederick III, German Emperor, yet Wilhelm II), in recent years. PS - I'm quite certain, shortly another RM will be opened there to have "of Denmark" dropped. Anyways, the continuing push for non-english names & the purging of the suffix "of country" from these monarch bio pages, shows no sign of stopping. GoodDay (talk) 09:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Community consensus was clearly against this move. This is not a common clear unambiguous name, as pointed out repeatedly in the comments to allow you to override it. You are not obliged to find consensus not to move. If it is unclear to you, then "no consensus", and the page remains at its most stable title, which would be "Ferdinand VI of Spain", where it has been for the past twenty years. On what basis did you override it and discover consensus to move? Walrasiad (talk) 09:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- On the basis that none of the opposers cited any guidelines or policies or proved any ambiguity while the supporters cited both the article titling policy and the relevant naming convention. It is explained in the closing comment. Surtsicna (talk) 10:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, Surtsicna is correct. As I noted above WP:RMCI indicates clearly that naming conventions take precedence over the quantity of !votes in an RM. WP:NCROY likewise clearly indicates that the natural disambiguator "of country" should only be used if needed to disambiguate, otherwise it should be dropped. Bensci54 (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Potential ambiguity was emphasized, the overwhelming majority opposed the move. If nothing else, WP:IAR would apply. And you're misreading the RCMI instructions. Read them again. It explicitly states that it is "move request" that must not conflict with policy, not opposition to it. Read the RMCI instructions carefully "unless there is a very good reason to ignore rules, should be closed without moving regardless of how many of the participants support it." Notice that it doesn't say it should be closed and moved. The fact that this page has been stable for twenty years, and this RM generated a great majority of opposition to it being moved, suggests that represents consensus of wider community. The default position in the closing instructions is to not move. Walrasiad (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- At this point, Surtsicna & Beкочeл (between them) must have opened over 200+ RMs in the last two months alone, with a majority of them resulting in delete "of country". Frustrating it may be, but that's the way the winds are blowing. At such a large scale, it's highly unlikely that any of those monarch bio pages, will ever return to having "of country" in their titles. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hm, I suppose you are right. But, at this point, I've already revised my closing once. I don't really want to do it again. If it is a concern perhaps it can be taken to MR? Either way I will avoid closing any more of these types of RMs. Bensci54 (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Walrasiad is not right. "Potential ambiguity" argument is making a mockery of the process. If there ever was another Ferdinand VI in history, the opposing editors would have named him. But there was not. Further, any move request that is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guideline and policy, unless there is a very good reason to ignore rules, should be closed without moving regardless of how many of the participants support it. The move request you closed is in keeping with naming conventions and policy. Walrasiad and other opposing editors did not cite a single guideline or policy in the discussion. Those who supported it cited guidelines and policy. Walrasiad's suggestion that you ignored rules when closing the discussion is heinous. Surtsicna (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- No, I took their reference to WP:IAR as saying I ought to have ignored all rules to close as not moving. They did correctly point out that the text you've made green above refers to the inverse situation, where a page is already at the correct name but there is a proposal to move it off, and doesn't necessarily apply in this situation. Bensci54 (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- That said, I do still think a Move close was correct, because in general WP:RMCI indicates that arguments with policy behind them hold more weight in determining consensus than those that do not, and as you've pointed out and I agree with, none of those who opposed had policy-based arguments. Bensci54 (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- It is definitely asymmetric. The purpose of the green text is to impose the obligation on the closer to ascertain first whether a move request is possible (that is, not conflicting with policy). Just because a move can be made, doesn't mean it must be made. That's why RMs exist. To determine whether a title change is wanted by the community or not. And in this case, clearly not. Walrasiad (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- No, RMs exist to determine whether a title change is needed to bring the title in line with Wikipedia's guideline and policies. That is why we do not vote but present arguments. Your arguments did not cut it. "Potential ambiguity". Surtsicna (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- It is definitely asymmetric. The purpose of the green text is to impose the obligation on the closer to ascertain first whether a move request is possible (that is, not conflicting with policy). Just because a move can be made, doesn't mean it must be made. That's why RMs exist. To determine whether a title change is wanted by the community or not. And in this case, clearly not. Walrasiad (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Walrasiad is not right. "Potential ambiguity" argument is making a mockery of the process. If there ever was another Ferdinand VI in history, the opposing editors would have named him. But there was not. Further, any move request that is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guideline and policy, unless there is a very good reason to ignore rules, should be closed without moving regardless of how many of the participants support it. The move request you closed is in keeping with naming conventions and policy. Walrasiad and other opposing editors did not cite a single guideline or policy in the discussion. Those who supported it cited guidelines and policy. Walrasiad's suggestion that you ignored rules when closing the discussion is heinous. Surtsicna (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Potential ambiguity was emphasized, the overwhelming majority opposed the move. If nothing else, WP:IAR would apply. And you're misreading the RCMI instructions. Read them again. It explicitly states that it is "move request" that must not conflict with policy, not opposition to it. Read the RMCI instructions carefully "unless there is a very good reason to ignore rules, should be closed without moving regardless of how many of the participants support it." Notice that it doesn't say it should be closed and moved. The fact that this page has been stable for twenty years, and this RM generated a great majority of opposition to it being moved, suggests that represents consensus of wider community. The default position in the closing instructions is to not move. Walrasiad (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Community consensus was clearly against this move. This is not a common clear unambiguous name, as pointed out repeatedly in the comments to allow you to override it. You are not obliged to find consensus not to move. If it is unclear to you, then "no consensus", and the page remains at its most stable title, which would be "Ferdinand VI of Spain", where it has been for the past twenty years. On what basis did you override it and discover consensus to move? Walrasiad (talk) 09:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Move review for Ferdinand VI of Spain
[edit]An editor has asked for a Move review of Ferdinand VI of Spain. 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.
Shirdi Airport
[edit]Sorry, I carried out the move request right before I saw your comment. I'll put it back if you have any objections. It looked ok to me. Station1 (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- I see someone else has already reverted. There's an RM on the talk page, in case you want to comment there. Station1 (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Virginia Beach RM closing comment
[edit]You don’t think contradicting CONCISE and causing untold ambiguity and confusion is good enough reason to IAR a guideline? Wow. What would be good enough? — В²C ☎ 21:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think the "unless there is a very good reason to ignore all rules" exception listed in the guideline is for cases where the rules clearly produce an incorrect name for a specific case, in such a way that the rules did not anticipate for. In this case, you did not present any arguments as to why this specific case ought to be an exception to the rule, but rather only voiced general disagreement with the guideline itself. The correct venue to voice such concerns would be at the talk page for the guideline, rather than at an individual RM. You made the point at the RM that guidelines follow consensus, not the other way around. I agree that this is correct. However, I disagree that an RM is the correct venue for such consensus-forming. Indeed the consensus at WP:RMCI is, as I've mentioned, that policy/guidelines should weigh very heavily in determining a closing, to the point of even overriding !votes, if said !votes are not in line with the guideline/policy. If someone starts an RfC or similar discussion on the WP:USPLACE talk page and a consensus manages to form to drop the state name from US cities when not necessary as a disambiguator, then this RM could be re-opened and would have a greater chance of passing. By the way, I fail to see how Virginia Beach, Virginia presents any more ambiguity and confusion as opposed to Virginia Beach. If anything Virginia Beach is more ambiguous. There is a decent argument to be made concerning WP:CONCISE, but again that argument really should be had at the talk page for WP:USPLACE. Bensci54 (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- No, you can’t change the guideline first. That’s not how WP works, which I explained here (and also linked in the RM). The only way naming guidelines change are by showing (usually IAR-based) consensus decisions contrary to the guideline manifested at individual RMs. The confusion created by unnecessarily disambiguated US city titles is the conveyance of the general acceptance of unnecessarily disambiguated titles, which isn’t the case for any other articles. В²C ☎ 12:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- It is definitely possible to hold an RfC on the talk page of a long-standing guideline, discuss how said guideline violates WP:CONCISE, determine if the community agrees, and then if a new consensus forms, have the guideline changed accordingly. I know this is possible because it has just recently occurred on the talk page for WP:NCROY where the long-standing mandatory pre-emptive disambiguation format of "(name) (ordinal) of (country)" on rulers who are not household names was determined to be in violation of WP:CONCISE and the guideline changed accordingly to remove the "of (country)" unless needed for disambiguation. I see no reason why a similar discussion would not be possible on the talk page for WP:USPLACE. Bensci54 (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- Of course it's possible to hold such an RfC and it some rare cases it may garner consensus, but my point is that one's case is much stronger if they can show some precedent consistent with the proposal. Denying the ability to set such precedents creates an unfair bias favoring the status quo. --В²C ☎ 22:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- It is definitely possible to hold an RfC on the talk page of a long-standing guideline, discuss how said guideline violates WP:CONCISE, determine if the community agrees, and then if a new consensus forms, have the guideline changed accordingly. I know this is possible because it has just recently occurred on the talk page for WP:NCROY where the long-standing mandatory pre-emptive disambiguation format of "(name) (ordinal) of (country)" on rulers who are not household names was determined to be in violation of WP:CONCISE and the guideline changed accordingly to remove the "of (country)" unless needed for disambiguation. I see no reason why a similar discussion would not be possible on the talk page for WP:USPLACE. Bensci54 (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- No, you can’t change the guideline first. That’s not how WP works, which I explained here (and also linked in the RM). The only way naming guidelines change are by showing (usually IAR-based) consensus decisions contrary to the guideline manifested at individual RMs. The confusion created by unnecessarily disambiguated US city titles is the conveyance of the general acceptance of unnecessarily disambiguated titles, which isn’t the case for any other articles. В²C ☎ 12:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Surtees
[edit]Hi Bensci54. Thanks for closing the RM discussion at Talk:Surtees Racing Organisation#Requested_move_4_February_2024. I was just wondering - are you planning to update all the links to Surtees to link to Surtees Racing Organisation instead? DH85868993 (talk) 05:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- @DH85868993 Yes, I can. Not today, though. Maybe tomorrow; I'll work on it in around 12 hours, probably. Bensci54 (talk) 06:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Cool. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 06:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Between us, SSSB, Onel5969 and I have updated all the necessary links. DH85868993 (talk) 09:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! Bensci54 (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Between us, SSSB, Onel5969 and I have updated all the necessary links. DH85868993 (talk) 09:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Cool. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 06:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Request
[edit]Hello, Bensci54,
I see you doing a lot of round robin page moves and I'm hoping you can understand the editor's request with Ennio De Giorgi. I don't move articles in that way so I'm not familiar with what they are asking to be done. Thanks for any assistance you can provide. Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- The move seemed reasonable to me, so I went ahead and accomplished what he was trying to do, and cleaned everything up short of deleting the Ennio De Giorgi (SWAP) page, which needs an admin to delete. If you could go ahead and delete that page, I think the issue will be settled. Bensci54 (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi,
turns out User:162_etc. was spot-on here, the other two entries on this dab page are simply no good. For the book, there is no actual mention at all. For the film, Amber Benson was in it, but it's not "by her", and the writer and director, per its IMDb page, don't have pages here, so there's nowhere worthwhile to link to.
Holiday Wishes now has a hatnote pointing directly to Holiday Wishes: From Me to You, which makes the dab page wholly surplus to requirements. Would you mind doing the honours? My bad, my diligence shall be due-er in the future! :)
- 89.183.221.75 (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- This still wouldn't be eligible for WP:G14, as even with these two lines removed, it would still be disambiguating two articles. Bensci54 (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hm. WP:ONEOTHER, second paragraph, states explicitly that "a disambiguation page is not needed" in this situation, though. Personally, I'm not really bothered one way or the other...
- ETA: Cleaned up the dab page, and tagged it as suggested in the guide. I guess that's that for now.
- - 89.183.221.75 (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Quick note on Talk:Offence against the person
[edit]Thanks for your edits to Talk:Offence against the person.
Is this an accurate read of consensus, or is this too early to close? I am obviously involved in the discussion and looking at the straw poll it is leaning oppose but I don't think the input is enough to gauge consensus, if you were to read the comments. Maybe a relist would be needed for further input? Awesome Aasim 03:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- It was already relisted once, and we aren't supposed to relist more than once without good reason. Changing the ENGVAR of an article is discouraged in general as well, as Necrothesp brought up. So in my view, consensus was agianst moving the page. I do note that consensus on splitting the article as per Visviva's comment could use further development, but RM is not the location for that discussion. Bensci54 (talk) 15:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Could you please elaborate on your reasons for closing this RM as not moved? I know it's tempting to go with whichever side has the numbers, but the opposers haven't put up policy-based arguments here. They've appealed to the "official name" instead of putting forward evidence from third-party sources, or claimed "Football Club" is a consistent styling across AFL clubs when it plainly and verifiably is not. There was a similar RM on Talk:Fremantle Football Club – opposers had the numbers, but made poor arguments – which was relisted. I ask you to consider doing the same for Tasmania. – Teratix ₵ 14:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hm, I do agree that the policy-backing of opposers is weak, but regardless there weren't any Support !votes at all. I think I will change this to relist similar to what Amakuru did on the Fremantle Club page. Another week couldn't hurt. Bensci54 (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024
[edit]Hello Bensci54,
Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.
Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.
Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.
It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!
2023 Awards
Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!
WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.
Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.
Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.
Reminders:
- You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
- Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
- To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
New page patrol May 2024 Backlog drive
[edit]| New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive |  |
| |
| You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. | |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
New pages patrol September 2024 Backlog drive
[edit]| New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive | |
| |
| You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. | |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Requested Move of Symphony station (Sound Transit)
[edit]This is a discussion about your close of Talk:Symphony_station_(Sound_Transit)#Requested move 31 August 2024.
The WP:COMMONNAME in use by reliable third-party sources such as the Seattle Times (1, 2, 3), for the past 30+ years, is "Symphony Station" capital-S proper noun.
This common name went completely unchallenged in the requested move. Not a single WP:SOURCE was provided showing "Symphony" or "Symphony station" usage.
We have a guideline at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (US stations) to specifically cover this case. The top item in the naming convention is Generally, U.S. station articles should be titled by their common name, followed by "station" if not already part of the name.
It goes on to say In cases where the word "Station" is part of the proper name, it should be capitalized.
and in cases where "station" is not part of the proper name, or is not usually capitalized in sources, it should be in written in lower case
. I'm not sure which the "proper name" refers to, but both the WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAME are "Symphony Station".
You wrote in your close The spirit of WP:USSTATION would point to this being non-capitalized.
But the actual guideline shows that "Symphony Station" should clearly be capitalized.
You also wrote Indeed, the station does not even use "station" it its signage, which would indicate it is just a regular station
. This is not true. While some platform signs do show the abbreviated "Symphony", other signs show "Symphony Station". Such as the signs at the recent renaming of the station, where officials stood at a "Symphony Station" podium underneath a permanent "SYMPHONY STATION" sign.
This particular article title is clearly out of line with WP:COMMONNAME and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (US stations). As mentioned by other participants in the RM it is out of scope to also require the move of every other station in the United States, so that line of reasoning should not be considered in your close. (I have no idea how other cities or reliable sources refer to their stations, and they very likely might be different from Seattle.) As another user said, "Expanding the scope of this discussion to the entire country is an unnecessary escalation and does not result in productive reasoning here."
PK-WIKI (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- @PK-WIKI Going through with this change would make this title non-consistent with the majority of US stations. i was inferring the spirit of the guideline based on its implementation. If a guideline can be interpreted in a way that doesn't align with its implementation, then perhaps the guideline's wording needs to be adjusted to be more clear. Anyways, on Wikipedia there is a pretty high bar for whether something is considered a proper noun: "consistently" capitalized, not just usually. I believe another user was able to find sources that did not capitalize it, so in cases like that Wikipedia defaults to not capitalizing. Bensci54 (talk) 05:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- No sources at all were presented showing "Symphony station" uncapitalized in this RM. The name phrase is consistently treated as a proper noun by all reliable sources. PK-WIKI (talk) 06:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- I concede that you are correct in that none of the links provided actually included a lowercase "Symphony station." That said, nothing in the discussion directed me to believe that the nature of this station was different from any other Seattle station, and there were links provided to several instances of reliable sources not capitalizing the word "station" on other Seattle stations, despite the official style guide (which shouldn't be taken into account anyways, per WP:OFFICIALNAME.) To me, this made the WP:COMMONNAME argument relatively weak. The oppose side had a strong WP:CONSISTENT argument, which is also top-level titling criterion, as indeed the vast majority of US stations are not capitalized and none of the stations in this system are. To me, the consistency argument outweighted the WP:COMMONNAME argument. Bensci54 (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Most of the stations on this line currently aren't capitalized, but I think there's an extremely strong WP:COMMONNAME (and WP:OFFICIALNAME) argument to made for all of the rest of the 1 Line (Sound Transit) stations too. Reliable sources are consistent in treating them as capitalized proper noun station locations. I was planning on bringing all of them to RM as soon as Symphony Station was moved. Planning to first bring this discussion to Wikipedia:Move review but let me know if you think there is a better option. PK-WIKI (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Move review is not a place to re-hash and re-argue what was already discussed in the RM - it is for situations where an editor feels that the close was unreasonable or "inconsistent with the spirit and intent" of Wikipedia's practices, policies, and guidelines. If you feel that this issue meets that criteria, then feel free to list at WP:RM. For what you are trying to do here, though, I think a more productive venue might be to start a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations), as the arguments you are making for this particular group of stations could be applied to several different groups as well. The outcome of a discussion there could indicate whether consensus is for adding clarifying language to the guideline to align with current practice, or if it is actually for a mass move. Bensci54 (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- I do think going against the actual text of WP:USSTATION was unreasonable for a close. Listed here: Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2024_September#Symphony_station_(Sound_Transit).
- Will bring up clarifications to that guideline as well in the future. PK-WIKI (talk) 20:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- Move review is not a place to re-hash and re-argue what was already discussed in the RM - it is for situations where an editor feels that the close was unreasonable or "inconsistent with the spirit and intent" of Wikipedia's practices, policies, and guidelines. If you feel that this issue meets that criteria, then feel free to list at WP:RM. For what you are trying to do here, though, I think a more productive venue might be to start a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations), as the arguments you are making for this particular group of stations could be applied to several different groups as well. The outcome of a discussion there could indicate whether consensus is for adding clarifying language to the guideline to align with current practice, or if it is actually for a mass move. Bensci54 (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- Most of the stations on this line currently aren't capitalized, but I think there's an extremely strong WP:COMMONNAME (and WP:OFFICIALNAME) argument to made for all of the rest of the 1 Line (Sound Transit) stations too. Reliable sources are consistent in treating them as capitalized proper noun station locations. I was planning on bringing all of them to RM as soon as Symphony Station was moved. Planning to first bring this discussion to Wikipedia:Move review but let me know if you think there is a better option. PK-WIKI (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- I concede that you are correct in that none of the links provided actually included a lowercase "Symphony station." That said, nothing in the discussion directed me to believe that the nature of this station was different from any other Seattle station, and there were links provided to several instances of reliable sources not capitalizing the word "station" on other Seattle stations, despite the official style guide (which shouldn't be taken into account anyways, per WP:OFFICIALNAME.) To me, this made the WP:COMMONNAME argument relatively weak. The oppose side had a strong WP:CONSISTENT argument, which is also top-level titling criterion, as indeed the vast majority of US stations are not capitalized and none of the stations in this system are. To me, the consistency argument outweighted the WP:COMMONNAME argument. Bensci54 (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- No sources at all were presented showing "Symphony station" uncapitalized in this RM. The name phrase is consistently treated as a proper noun by all reliable sources. PK-WIKI (talk) 06:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
MfD nomination of Draft:King Liang
[edit]
Draft:King Liang, 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/Draft:King Liang and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:King Liang 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. ASUKITE 17:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
New pages patrol January 2025 Backlog drive
[edit]| January 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol | |
| |
| You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. | |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Your closure at Talk:Disney Channel (Europe, Middle East and Africa)#Requested move 13 December 2024
[edit]Hey, I just wanted to bring up your closures at Talk:Disney Channel (Europe, Middle East and Africa)#Requested move 13 December 2024; this probably should've been relisted to allow for further discussion.
If you look at the rationale, you'll see that the nominator pinged another editor, specifically asking for the participation of somebody whom they knew would support their request based on their participation in a previous RM. This is a textbook case of WP:CANVASSING. Discounting that editor's canvassed participation, the request had only one other participant expressing support, and another one expressing oppose, so no consensus yet. RachelTensions (talk) 15:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- The move was in accordance with the guideline at WP:NCBC#Disambiguation. As the community consensus is reflected in the guideline, this was an easy close regardless of the canvassing. Bensci54 (talk) 13:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)