This is an archive of past discussions with User:Cuchullain. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.
Technical news
AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.
Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.
For real? Seems like the same content to me. Like a GM. Same car different shell. Not going to fight you on this, though. Just tidying up Jacksonville business related articles and shit. Mathew105601 (talk) 13:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Mathew105601 I can say with all confidence that they are separate sites and businesses. What happens is that for several years now, Modern Cities content is sometimes also posted on Metro Jacksonville (which at this point no longer posts any other content). I'll email you with more info.--Cúchullaint/c14:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Bruce McArthur move request
Thanks for your attention at Talk:Bruce McArthur#Requested move 18 May 2018. I knew it was divisive amongst editors but I was hoping there was a policy-based consensus to be had. I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but I was curious what you might think about WP:PERP and BLP concerns vs WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNIZABLE. I was hoping to clear up any serious concerns before the article is promoted on the main page. Any advice would be welcome. – Reidgreg (talk) 10:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
There is a very serious WP:BLP concern here, and I think many of the participants understood that, even if the suggested title was seen as doable. If a better descriptive title can be found, I think a new RM should be opened immediately - and possibly, the article should just be moved. BLP is a more important concern than RM process.--Cúchullaint/c17:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the link. I was going to wait a week for other suggestions before another RM but it looks like someone went ahead and moved it. Gotta catch up on those talk pages now. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Following a successful request for comment, administrators are now able to add and remove editors to the "event coordinator" group. Users in the event coordinator group have the ability to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit. Users will no longer need to be in the "account creator" group if they are in the event coordinator group.
IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.
Arbitration
A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.
Hey Cuchullain: would you consider amending the close here to no consensus. I don’t think it’s fair to say that there was a consensus that it isnt the primary topic: numerically the sides were about even and in my view, the opposes weren’t policy based or didn’t present any evidence for their positions. The result in terms of title is the same, but I’ll likely try to start a new RM with a better initial statement at some point in the future (I thought this would be non-controversial), and I’d prefer not to have a future RM be in the shadow of a consensus that I don’t think exists. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
TonyBallioni, I'd like to be accommodating, but frankly, I think it was the supports that were less based in policy and evidence. Other than yourself, there were no other arguments that gave more than their own assertion that this Lazarus is the Lazarus. One provided page view evidence that undermines their own argument. Can you tell me what in the opposing !votes wasn't based in policy and evidence?--Cúchullaint/c14:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Sure. Tony1’s had zero basis in anything policy related or evidence related, and I think I raised sufficient arguments against the from the gut argument he made there. StAnselm argued from the Bible without presenting any evidence that scriptural scholars agree with them, IIO made an argument that I think Randy Kryn successfully rebutted based on page view evidence (I disagree with your assessment of it when taken in context of both the impact and search).In terms of supports, Randy Kryn presented additional evidence showing the dominance of this topic eventually and helped to rebut another argument, and Netoholic’s page view argument was poorly explained, but if you actually look at what he presented shows that some months the title in question gets 2-3x what the current disambiguation page was, which is a strong argument for a primary title. I’d agree that both sides had some rather weak !votes, but only the supports even attempted to argue based on policy or evidence rather than gut feelings. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd say just the opposite about the supports other than your own. Things like WP:COMMONNAME and WP:POLA aren't really relevant to the primary topic issue - they may be arguments for different disambiguation, but not necessarily for no disambiguation if the title is, well, ambiguous. The page view evidence mentioned by 2 supporters simply does not support the primary topic claim - even in that limited analysis (there are more topics call "Lazarus" than that), Lazarus of Bethany does not receive more page views than the other topics. Arguments about this Lazarus "standing out" and being the namesake of many other uses are fair "know it when you see it" points, but they aren't stronger than the "know it when you see it points" from the other side, such as the fact that the other Biblical Lazarus is also historically significant, and that making this the primary topic could be a "disservice to readers in a search". I found StAnselm's point well argued.
That said, I can shift it to a "no consensus", I think that would be fair, though I'll make it clear that it wasn't anywhere close to reaching a consensus to move as proposed.--Cúchullaint/c19:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough, I disagree with your assessment of those arguments, StAnselm's in particular I think was very weak to the point where it should have had no weight, and I think it could have justifiably been closed as either no consensus or even moved, but I'm fine with a no consensus close and see it as well within discretion. Thanks for being open to talk about it. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Lyndaship: It will have been included in the article alerts for the WikiProjects at the affected pages - Cities, England, UK Geography, Devon, and Disambiguation. Beyond that, not to my knowledge. It could probably be brought up at others that oversee pages that may be affected.--Cúchullaint/c19:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Ah that's what I thought. Obviously a move like this has relevance to other pages affected. It's no surprise we get lots of Devon people opposing but no car enthusiast or pilgrim father supporting if they are unaware of the proposal Lyndaship (talk) 19:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Anyone ending up at the "wrong" Plymouth will know about it. If people aren't ending up at the "wrong" Plymouth then perhaps it isn't wrong! DuncanHill (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
That's a fair point Duncan but I would hold that most people arriving at the "wrong" Plymouth are likely to be users and not editors with a wish and understanding of how to change things Lyndaship (talk) 19:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I think it's obvious that a lot of readers are ending up at the "wrong Plymouth", in that only a minority of readers looking for a Plymouth intend this Plymouth.
I have done this. I'm not sure if I need to (or how to if I do) make mention of this in the discussion thread Lyndaship (talk) 06:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon () in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
Miscellaneous
Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Boleyn (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.
Technical news
The WMF Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input on the second set of wireframes for the Special:Block redesign that will introduce partial blocks. The new functionality will allow you to block a user from editing a specific set of pages, pages in a category, a namespace, and for specific actions such as moving pages and uploading files.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Rum and Coke you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vami IV -- Vami IV (talk) 00:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.
Technical news
Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.
Arbitration
The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.
Hi - would you mind a few more words of explanation for finding a consensus to move rather than a no consensus result, given the 8-6 margin and the convincing arguments on both sides? Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
My comment: Surely you should reconsider the word "convincing". One should not really be convinced both for and against at the same time. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Please note the wrong naming convention was used in the rename - it should have been renamed to Dundas railway station, Sydney and not New South Wales. And there is still a link going to the disambiguation page from Carlingford railway lineFleet Lists (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I have not been able to correct this as Dundas railway station, Sydney already exists as a redirect. Hopefully you will be able to fix this. In anticipation of this I am in the process of changing Dundas, New South Wales to Dundas, Sydney in other articles.Fleet Lists (talk) 04:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
There is an open request for comment on Meta regarding the creation a new user group for global edit filter management.
Technical news
Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.
Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.
Hi, I see that earlier this year you moved a lot of ethnicities articles from "X people" to the primary title "X". Some of these are helpful moves (particularly in the cases where there didn't appear to be any other articles ambiguous with "X"), but quite a few of the moves were over a disambiguation page that also listed the language with the same name. Now, you don't seem to have made any similar moves for some times, so I take it that you're already aware – and I just wanted to double-check – that, barring exceptional circumstances, there usually is no primary topic between the ethnic group and the language. – Uanfala (talk)13:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Uanfala: The moves I've made are either where there are no ambiguous articles, or where the people are the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. In cases where the only ambiguous topics are a people and the language they speak, the people are usually (but not always) the primary topic, and a dab page at the base name isn't advisable per WP:TWODABS.--Cúchullaint/c14:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Uanfala: Your edit to Zoque was one of the rare cases where the people aren't clearly the primary topic, but your titling of the dab page was incorrect. If no term is primary, the dab page should go at the base name - Zoque, not Zoque (disambiguation). I'll move this one now.--Cúchullaint/c14:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
The people are usually the primary topic? I'm not sure I see where you're coming from. Yes, there are exceptional cases where the ethnic group has received significantly more coverage in the literature (anthropoligical or otherwise), or where the language is extinct or spoken by only a fragment of the ethnic population. But the exception proves the rule. If a name is shared by the people and the language, then in the vast majority of cases, the two articles are disambiguated and the primary title is occupied by a dab page. That's not addressed in WP:NCET, but it's implied in a lot of the examples, and it's explicitly stated in WP:NCLANG. As for the title of the Zoque dab page, I normally leave these to the admins patrolling WP:MALPLACED, but thanks for fixing it! – Uanfala (talk)21:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, the reality is that in most WP:TWODABS situations, one topic is primary over the other in terms of article traffic and long-term significance. Unless they're really roughly equal, a dab page with only two entries isn't the best way to handle navigation, and should be avoided. And in the many TWODABS cases I've seen working in articles from the Americas, the people have been the clear primary topic in the majority of cases. They'll always have a better case in terms of long-term significance, but it usually holds up in the page views as well. Neither WP:ETHNICGROUP nor WP:NCLANG say to default to a dab page at the base name if there's a primary topic, and of course it couldn't overrule the main disambiguation guidelines anyway. There are occasions, of course, where the people are not primary even in a TWODABS situation.--Cúchullaint/c22:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Hmmm... WP:NCLANG doesn't say that anymore, but that's only because you removed the relevant text last year [1]: Where a name is shared between a language and the corresponding ethnic or national group, as is the case with many such names in English, experience shows that a search for which of these has "primary" status is most often futile. Again, I'm not sure where you're getting that notion that the people are usually the primary topic. If that's what has emerged out of discussions invovling groups of North America, then fine: I don't really edit there. But please be aware that this is upside down to the rest of wikipedia. How many articles do you see at primary titles in Category:Indigenous peoples of East Africa or in Category:Indigenous peoples of Southeast Asia? – Uanfala (talk)22:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
<talk page stalker> I would have to say I agree with Uanfala here. It's generally likely to be a wash between a people and a language because the numbers involved will be similar, and it's hard to say common usage favours one or the other. The previous NCLANG recommendation for a dab page seems a good one because it means a very simple page is loaded which clearly sets out the two (or more) options available. — Amakuru (talk) 22:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I've just had a look at Category:Indigenous peoples of the Amazon and I was surpised to see that almost all the people articles there are at the primary titles. Hmm.. how could this be? Well, I inspected the 13 articles starting with A: 1 was not at the primary title, 1 didn't correspond to a language article, 2 had been at the primary titles all along, and the remaining 9 were there only because you, Cuchullain, moved them (apparenytly in one go on 20 Dec 2016). Something similar seems to have happened, in the course of the last couple of years, to a large share of articles about peoples of the Americas. Gosh, it's probably going to be ages until someone gets around to sorting this all out. But where did it all start? I've had a cursory look at the talk pages of WP:NCET and WP:NCLANG and although the topic has been nibbled at, there really isn't much, and there definitely is nothing anywhere near a consensus for these moves. And there's this enormous mass RM from March 2014 requesting about 30 similar moves for ethnic groups of the US. It was closed as "no consensus", but it appears that individual RMs were almost immediately started for most of the articles concerned, and these eventually were successful. Was that the precedent that unleashed the big series of moves? These RMs had the same five or six editors participating, and the discussions are almost identical copies of one another. Now, even if we adopt a very generous stance towards the "support" arguments there, it would be odd to use the opinions of three to four more or less random editors as the basis for hundreds upon hundreds of major moves. There must have been something else. Where's the big discussion that I can't find? – Uanfala (talk)01:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I’ll have some more comments in the morning, but yeah, there’s been a lot of discussion vis a vis indigenous peoples in the Americas and disambiguation, and about those guidelines. The gist of it is, years of edit warring left no consistency in the way these articles were titled and disambiguated (including in TWODABS situations), and the move discussions that followed have tended to favor the standard, project-wide practice of dismbiguating only when an article isn’t the primary topic. It’s possible the same issues affect articles on peoples outside the Americas, but I’ve mostly worked on indigenous American articles. The previous inconsistency often screwed up the navigation between peoples, languages, and dab pages, which was the main thing I was trying to fix with these edits. I’ll explain more tomorrow.—Cúchullaint/c01:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Uanfala and Amakuru: The situation in the Americas has been complicated for several years, and the former wording on the guidelines made it worse, which is part of the reason it was changed. The core issue is that there's a lot of variety in articles on peoples in the Americas. There are groups both small and large, isolated and well known. There are small groups with a few hundred people, and large, well known groups like the Mixtec or Navajo. When it comes to language, there are peoples whose language is vibrant, and others where the language is extinct or restricted to only a few speakers, even though the people themselves survive and may be thriving. There are also articles on historical peoples who are well attested thought he language is poorly attested. There are others where there's no one language (eg the Muscogee and Seminole), or where the language has a different name. There are other cases where a plural name is more common than a "Xxx people" construction, for instance Aztecs and Island Caribs.
One interesting case is Apalachee, which has been at the base name since it was created. The Apalachee were a prominent Florida people in the 16th and 17th century and are well attested in history. Today they're a small group of only 300 people. The Apalachee language has been extinct for hundreds of years and is known almost entirely from a single letter. The Apalachee people are the clear primary topic of that name - this is borne out by the page views (despite the existence of other topics),[2] long-term significance, and the proliferation of books that are about them vs. any other topic.[3]
The former wording at WP:NCET and WP:NCLANG was, I'm sure, added to try and reduce confusion, but it ended up creating more confusion than it ever resolved. It simply didn't jibe with the overarching naming guidelines. This led to a series of mass moves by a handful of editors with conflicting interpretations of the guidelines, resulting in confusion and inconsistency in the way articles were titled. First, some editors unilaterally moved literally hundreds of articles to "Xxx people" titles; they often neglected to create a dab page at the base name or other disambiguation aids. In many cases where a dab page was created, another group of editors subsequently came along and redirected them to the "Xxx people" titles. This made the "people" pointless for disambiguation, and moreover, almost without exception, they neglected to include any hat notes for the language or other uses (this series of moves is characteristic:[4][5][6]; both versions of the name are incorrect).
The titling of indigenous American articles was the subject of numerous discussions, eg here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. There have also been dozens of requested moves at individual articles.[7][8][9] These have long trended toward falling back on the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline where it's applicable, which is why wording at the guidelines was updated by me and others.
At any rate, the primary reason I started making all those moves was to clean up the disambiguation. The previous situation was inconsistent, broken, and untenable. Most of the moves I did have been when the base name already redirected to peoples' article or didn't exist; in other cases I tried to gauge if it was the primary topic before moving. As much as I could, I tried to make sure the correct hat notes and dab pages were in place so that readers can get between the articles. It has certainly been my experience that the people are usually clearly the primary topic in terms of page views; I'd argue that there's almost always a good long-term significance case for a people over their language regardless of the views. But as we found with Zoque, there are certainly cases where I was off (at least according to the page views, or where the page views have changed). I remember one country I came across (Guatemala, I think) where it was opposite, and the language was primary, so I stopped moving the ethnicity articles. At any rate, in the least I tried to ensure that readers could navigate to the topic they're looking for.--Cúchullaint/c17:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply, I'll have a look at the talk page threads when I get the time. Just noting that the RMs you link to are instances of precisely the dubious cookie-cutter discussions I was referring to. I appreciate you work cleaning up the navigation structure of what must have been a messy area, but what is at issue here is only the renaming of what seems like the vast majority of articles about ethnic groups of the Americas. It's good that you've taken the time to gauge the primary topic status in each case, but if the overall result is topsy-turvy to the rest of the world, where these decisions have been made on a larger set of articles and by a larger group of editors, then it's at least conceivable that the way you evaluate the primary topic status of those topics is different from the way most other editors do. – Uanfala (talk)00:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it's really out of step with the rest of the world, looking around at Category:Ethnic groups in China, Category:Ethnic groups in India, for instance. There's still a wide variety in many areas. The reason there was (some level of) consistency in other areas is at least in part because many articles were moved to the "Xxx people" construction by the same small group of editors - one editor in particular moved literally thousands of them. Nothing wrong with that, of course, it doesn't appear that that advice is the consensus any longer, based on the discussions.
I don't think my evaluation of primary topic status is different than the way most other editors see it, either locally in the discussions, or across Wikipedia. IMO, the consensus is really closer to defaulting to the people's article at the base name as a WP:BROADCONCEPT in TWODABS situations, but at any rate, there's wide consensus across Wikipedia for PRIMARYTOPIC. Another way to think about it is that if one guideline or project has naming conventions that differ from the naming conventions across the encyclopedia, then the broader consensus may not really support them.--Cúchullaint/c16:27, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Again, I will need to look closer at the previous discissions before addressing the substance of your argument, but just for the time being a few notes. Category:Ethnic groups in China is what I'm talking about: you can see that over three quarters of the ethnicity articles there have titles that either end in "people" or are in the plural (and hence not ambiguous with the language), and the few that are at the base title are there mostly because there is no corresponding language (there's not such thing as Argyn language to go with the Argyn for example). This latter situation is what you see in Category:Ethnic groups in India: the ethnicity articles are at the primary titles because they aren't ambiguous: there are no corresponding languages with the name; language and ethnicity in non-tribal South Asia usually exist in dimensions that are independent of one another. – Uanfala (talk)21:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.
Arbitration
Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-enwikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.
Thanks for looking at some of the station names again. I was steadily working through them earlier this year, recording progress at User:Amakuru/Disambiguated stations, but then I got sidetracked before the job was complete and haven't looked back at it again since. Let me know how you get on. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Amakuru: Thanks - I think they're mostly all done except historical stations. Right now I'm mostly finding them working through conflicts with Irish, Australian and New Zealand stations as part of the effort at the proposed WP:IRLSTATION and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Australian and New Zealand stations) conventions (as an aside, your input would be valuable to drafting both of those). Writing out the station name is in my opinion almost always better, as most defunct railroad names aren't well known. Not sure that I've done that consistently, but will from now on.--Cúchullaint/c15:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Cuchullain. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.
Hello, Cuchullain. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.
I see you've also moved Island Road and Edmondstown .... I'm really not sure you've consensus for this. Quite frankly I haven't got time to look at it at the moment. But with having about 20 of my images wiped from Commons and therefore from Wikipedia Irish railway articles, and with the amount of low level vandalism on this articles I've been helping to ease I am not in the happiest of moods .... Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
Administrators and bureaucrats can no longer unblock themselves unless they placed the block initially. This change has been implemented globally. See also this ongoing village pump discussion (permalink).
To complement the aforementioned change, blocked administrators will soon have the ability to block the administrator that placed their block to mitigate the possibility of a compromised administrator account blocking all other active administrators.
In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (Raymond Arritt) passed away on 14 November 2018. Boris joined Wikipedia as Raymond arritt on 8 May 2006 and was an administrator from 30 July 2007 to 2 June 2008.
That's a good point re the 2012 series. I misread the page history and thought it had been longer. As it's been within the last few months I'll move that one to the status quo title and update my statement.--Cúchullaint/c13:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
The coelbren alphabet was not created by some guy in the 19th century. Stop lying. Its well known this alphabet can be found of ancient scripts dating back to ancient eygyptian times and before. The khumric tribes to be exact. Stop forcing this Germonic agenda. We the welsh will not have our history hushed by the the Germonic (Royal family) any longer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.232.67 (talk) 09:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
