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.
In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.
The scope of CSD criterion G8 has been tightened such that the only redirects that it now applies to are those which target non-existent pages.
The scope of CSD criterion G14 has been expanded slightly to include orphan "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects that target pages that are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).
The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.
Miscellaneous
In February 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) changed its office actions policy to include temporary and project-specific bans. The WMF exercised this new ability for the first time on the English Wikipedia on 10 June 2019 to temporarily ban and desysop Fram. This action has resulted in significant community discussion, a request for arbitration (permalink), and, either directly or indirectly, the resignations of numerous administrators and functionaries. The WMF Board of Trustees is aware of the situation, and discussions continue on a statement and a way forward. The Arbitration Committee has sent an open letter to the WMF Board.
Due to the vagaries of time and space, I was reading that article about the gangster Noonan (I already forgot his first name) and thinking, "That ain't right...." at the same time you were reverting to a previous version. Thank you for saving me the trouble of fixing it! Also the comment by the previous editor to you was pretty good, "...I don't know how old the dog was." Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.
Hello, this is CentralTime301 (formerly 107.77.169.5). I want to let you know that one of your recent contributions to WJCT (TV) has been reverted by me just because you keep reverting it to your way. Please stop doing this everytime I revert WJCT (TV) just because you think this is poorly written and styled "just like most of these articles". Stop it Cuchullain.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.169.5. (talk • contribs)
Hi, Cuchullain. I've just noticed that long, long ago – further back perhaps than your memory clearly reaches – you categorised Lludd and Llefelys and Brut y Tywysogion as Arthurian literature, since amended by others to Arthurian literature in Welsh. I'm guessing you did that because L&L is a source of the Merlin/Vortigern/dragons story and because ByT is a continuation of HRB. Neither of those connections, I would have thought, is really enough to make them Arthurian, but I must think twice and three times before overruling you on a question of medieval Celtic lit, so I'm stopping by here to ask if you can think of a better reason which hasn't occurred to me. Cheers. --Antiquary (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Antiquary: I don't recall but that's likely what I was thinking, using the (much) broader definition of "Arthurian literature". I'd still consider L&L an Arthurian story in that the narrative is directly part of wider Brut narrative, and references an important plot point in the Vortigern story. As for ByT, there may be a more directly relevant category now, I haven't checked.--Cúchullaint/c22:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Need advice on removing interlanguage link from userpage
My userpage is currently linked to Wikipédia:Userbox/Reunificação da Irlandas on the Portuguese Wikipedia although that is not a userpage and I did not link it myself. I cannot find the link to edit interlanguage links on my userpage so I was wondering if you could remove the link if if you could direct me to the right procedure for removing the link? I have not created a userpage in any other language as I do not have the expertise to do so without a professional translator. My only other userpages across Wikimedia are on Commons and Wiktionary and they are both in English. Tk420 (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Apart from being likely notable as an idea, this article had been edited many times by many regular editors. It's not terrible. Its deletion without community input could be controversial. Please take it to AfD if you must. Bearian (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Upon closing a move discussion a reason is usually provided. However, I cannot see a reason for closing Talk:Aberdyfi#Requested move 17 June 2019 unlike with Talk:Castle in the Sky#Requested move 8 October 2016 in which the reason given was 'There appears to be consensus that just "Castle in the Sky" is the most common name in English sources'. This was the first move discussion I started and I did it for similar reasons as the Aberdyfi discussion although I was confident that the American title for the film was the most common in English. Back to the Aberdyfi discussion: In guessing why the article was not moved I figured it might have something to do with WP:COMMONNAME which states 'Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)'. I also guessed it might be to do with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Multiple local names, which states 'one solution is to follow English usage where it can be determined and to adopt the name used by the linguistic majority where English usage is indecisive', given Aberdyfi/Aberdovey is a place known by multiple names. I have since learned how to use Google Trends according to which there are more searches for 'Aberdyfi' although searches for 'Aberdovey' are at almost equal levels which I found unsurprising given the local councils and the Welsh Government favour the Welsh 'Aberdyfi' along with the mainstream media although many tourists remain familiar with the anglicised 'Aberdovey'. In light of this I decided to include a 'Name' section, an 'also known as...' in the introduction and 'Aberdyfi/Aberdovey' in the infobox of the Aberdyfi article to help explain the issue to readers unfamiliar with it after getting ideas from the Derry, County Londonderry and Outer Hebrides articles which are also about places in the United Kingdom known by more than one name in English. I have also included a photograph of the bilingual welcome sign on the approach to the village I took on what has so far been my only visit there since the move discussion although it is one of my nearest seaside resorts.
If it is possible can you include your reason for not moving the article in the Talk:Aberdyfi#Requested move 17 June 2019 section? I have included my image of the welcome sign I mentioned in case you would like to see it as you have expressed an interest in Welsh literature in your user page. Tk420 (talk) 21:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Bilingual welcome sign, using both the Welsh and anglicised spellings, on the approach to the village from the north on the A493 adjacent to the Trefeddian Hotel on the west side.
Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.
A global request for comment is in progress regarding whether a user group should be created that could modify edit filters across all public Wikimedia wikis.
I seem to have a recurring problem with pinging usually wrong brackets on one end or the other or short a bracket. Anyway I've responded to you on my user page Oldperson (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello. I just reviewed your RM close at Talk:NGHTCRWLRS. In your closing statement, you said that "Most participants favor the capitalized form". But when I look at the discussion, I find that the opposite is true. The expressed opinions were 4:3 against the capitalized form. The four were myself, Lazz R, PC78, and In ictu oculi. The three were Naraht, No such user, and Amakuru. Can you please check that? —BarrelProof (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Need help with another admin's reversion of move following Talk:River Dovey#Requested move 28 July 2019
The original Talk:River Dovey#Requested move 28 July 2019 was closed on 8 August 2019 with the article moved to 'River Dyfi' by User:DrKay. However, DrKay has since moved the article back to River Dovey and reopened the discussion interpreting my messages to them as opposing the move, which I was actually satisfied with as 'River Dyfi' appears to be the most common name in reliable modern-day English-language sources, when I was merely asking them to provide a reason, like I asked you about your decision on Aberdyfi, for choosing the 'River' prefix over 'Afon' used in some English-language Wikipedia articles about rivers in Wales. The reason I tried to ask DrKay is in case the reason is helpful in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers#RfC about the examples of local names discussion I started about the wider dispute on whether to use 'River' or 'Afon' in the title of an article about a river in Wales. Tk420 (talk) 22:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.
Technical news
As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Herbert S. Terrace, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
It appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement of https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/experts/herbert-s-terrace-phd. (See section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
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. Praxidicae (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
There is no enforced consistency on these articles that must be followed regardless of other considerations. The current style is far more reader friendly.—Cúchullaint/c15:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate.
If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here
Apolgies for bring this up but Dilidor is at againreverting Native Americans to Indians and won't give the editor the courtesy of a reply. At least so far he has given up on reverting my edits and I his.Oldperson (talk)
I've got a minor "Djehuty" situation here: somebody moved the Khwarezmian language page to Khwarazmian (and also got the Khwarezm (region) page moved to Khwarazm). Since the linguistic standard spelling differs from the geographical, which should predominate on WP? Amusingly (amateurishly?) they didn't even change the pronunciation of Khwarezm on the now-Khwarazm page. TheLateDentarthurdent (talk) 18:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
TheLateDentarthurdent: Looks like Khwarazm was moved through a formal move request based on the fact that it's more common in books, and apparently the language was moved more recently to match. There wasn't a discussion so I'll move it back and folks can present evidence which is most common one way or the other.--Cúchullaint/c20:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Close on Great replacement
I appreciate your taking the time to close the dispute here, and I realize this is a thankless task, but I think the close here was premature. The most recent comment was just a couple hours ago, and I had tried to ping another editor for discussion earlier today.
You mentioned WP:COMMONNAME in your close, but I was the only editor who actually tried to provide evidence on that front, and what I found didn't really support the claim that the current title is clearly more common. There's also almost no discussion of the precision and consistency criteria that were the central part of the discussion in the close. Given that the votes were roughly evenly split, the discussion was still ongoing, and the !voters hadn't really engaged in a evidence-based discussion on any of the policy stuff, I think this should remain open, or at least close as "no consensus" with some acknowledgement of how the naming criteria are supposed to be weighed. Nblundtalk18:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm usually more than happy to reopen a move discussion, but in this case it was backlogged after having already been relisted once, and it followed two previous RMs this year. On the COMMONNAME issue, it was brought up by several !voters, and there certainly wasn't evidence that "Great Replacement conspiracy theory" is more common than the present title.--Cúchullaint/c19:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the norms are for move discussions, but doesn't that indicate "no consensus"? I know that doesn't change the ultimate outcome, but I have a hard time seeing how a consensus developed between the first relisting and your closing. The ratio of support/opposition stayed roughly equal, and I really don't see much of an effort to engage with the issues that the !support voters were actually raising. It's not like common name is the only policy. I have a hard time seeing any reason (other than a lack of participation by the community) why this entry is one of the only conspiracy theory related articles that doesn't have "conspiracy theory" in its title. Nblundtalk20:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
For one thing, looking in Category:Conspiracy theories, Category:Conspiracy theories in the United States, it isn't the case that most conspiracy theory articles have "conspiracy theory" in the title. There's also the matter that in this case it's not the common name, nor is it needed to distinguish from ambiguous articles. Judging by the strength of the arguments as well as the arguments from the past RMs, I read this as a consensus against moving.--Cúchullaint/c21:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Look, I'm not trying to re-litigate the issue with you, but the fact that you're citing your own evidence on an issue really makes it seem even more like a super-vote rather than a summary of the actual discussion. It's clear I'm not going to persuade you, but the close seems really detached from the discussion. Nblundtalk21:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) It looks like a good close to me, with the caveat that I opposed the move. The March RM provided evidence that WP:COMMONNAME favoured the shorter title, so it's reasonable for people to hang their hats on that in this RM too. And ultimately WP:COMMONNAME seems to have been the strongest policy argument in evidence. The assertion that conspiracy theories are always labelled such in their titles was refuted as false, per the category links above. Obviously it's frustrating when you don't get your way, but I don't see much cause to think this was an improper close. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 22:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Nblund, the idea that the "X conspiracy theory" format is used in all other articles was refuted in the discussion. Again, I judged the arguments against the move as stronger according to policy, and given the strong consensus in the March discussion, I believe my close of no move is reasonable.--Cúchullaint/c15:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Request for assistance with article titles on rivers in Wales
I have recently been involved in move discussions on rivers in Wales and there appears to be some confusion over whether to use 'River' or 'Afon' in the title of an article about a watercourse in Wales although this is the English-language Wikipedia. The Talk:Afon Rheidol#Requested move 21 August 2019 and the Talk:Afon Mawddach#Requested move 24 August 2019 discussions on whether to move the articles to 'River Rheidol' and 'River Mawddach' respectively were closed without moving with the reason given as 'No consensus to move at this time, after much-extended time for discussion.' Although I was sure the 'River' prefix is common given its use by some of the mainstream media and by tourism agencies I do not have easy access to other reliable English-language sources which I think is a hinderance in convincing other users. The opponents of the move to the 'River' prefix argue that the use of the Welsh 'Afon' in English is normal locally remembering the dialects of English within Wales have loanwords from the Welsh-language. I have wondered if this is a colloquialism but I have since discovered the use of 'Afon' by Natural Resources Wales, which is the agency responsible for management of watercourses, in their English-language articles and in a video which assured me it is at least sometimes used in formal resources.
There is currently no guideline, I am aware of, over whether to use 'River' or 'Afon' in such article titles so I started an Rfc in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers#Title section to suggest such a guideline. I have suggested using whichever prefix is more common in reliable English-language sources as per WP:COMMONNAME but another user seems adamant that the word 'River' should be used in a title, if any English-language sources use it, regardless of whether it is more common. I have wondered if this is based on personal preference rather than Wikipedia Manual of Style which I put first before my own preferences e.g. I am from England's West Midlands, from which the west coast of Wales receives much tourism being the nearest coastline, where the 'River' prefix is generally preferred for larger watercourses although I accept that the preference for Welsh names over similar sounding anglicisations is more common in west Wales (according to the Anglicisation article). I have written this message in case the user in question would listen more to an admin or if you can offer any advice in reasoning with them. The use of either the 'River' or 'Afon' prefix might be controversial so I have suggested just using the more common prefix in the first instance and avoiding any prefix thereafter.
There is also the matter of whether to include English translations in articles with the 'Afon' prefix in the title. To me this seems unnecessary given the first six words (without the current translation bracket) in the introduction to the Afon Mawddach article read 'The Afon Mawddach is a river' in a similar manner to the introduction in the Rio Grande article in which it is not translated to 'Big' or 'Great River' in the introduction (as far as I am aware there is a similar issue in the United States where 'X River' is generally used for notable watercourses with some exceptions). The user I mentioned in the above paragraph also seems adamant that the translation bracket is sensible. If a watercourse is known by more than one name among English-speakers I have suggested using the most common name in the title and including the other names as 'Also known as' as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Multiple local names like I did in the Aberdyfi article which has so far gone unchallenged.
If you can help at all can you please reply as soon as possible given the Rfc has now been open for more than a month so I am not sure how much longer it will remain open before it is closed. Tk420 (talk) 12:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
It is not just rivers in Wales that are controversial in deciding on the title of articles (I have found a similar dispute over whether Bala Lake should be referred to as 'Llyn Tegid'). My recent find suggests there is a general dispute over whether to the Welsh-language or an English name in an article title for a Welsh geographical feature in general. In light of this I would like some advice on starting a dispute resolution maybe leading to an official guideline on this. Tk420 (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Honestly I don't see this getting resolved anytime soon as long as there's no consistency in the sources, where some rivers are more commonly called "River X" and others are "Afon X". I don't have much to add, I'm afraid.--Cúchullaint/c21:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you anyway. However, there is still the issue of whether to include a bracket for translation into English e.g. (English: River Mawddach), which I feel is unnecessary in an English-language article, in articles with 'Afon X' in the title considering the first six words (without the bracket) in the Afon Mawddach article would read the obvious explanation 'The Afon Mawddach is a river'. I removed the bracket from the Afon Rheidol article on 9 September 2019 and it has so far gone unchallenged but when I tried removing it from Afon Mawddach it was reverted with the opponent claiming the addition of the bracket is sensible. I started a discussion on this in the sub-section Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers#Whether to include an English translation bracket in articles with non-English titles. In the section User:BeenAroundAWhile brought an American perspective into the discussion pointing out 'we say Rio Grande but also Los Angeles River, using the local terminology for each. I suppose there is a similar usage in other countries with other rivers.' I checked the Rio Grande article and there is no bracket translating it into 'Great River' or 'Big River' although it is explained in the 'Names and pronunciation' section.
Cuchullain, if this had been almost anyone but you, I would have just reverted this edit: [1]. You wrote, correctly, that the information about FCHS was "not in the source". But nothing there claims that the source supports it. The citation follows, not the second sentence in the paragraph, but the third, and that sentence is what the source is there for. There is no obligation to have every sentence in the paragraph to be supported by the source; indeed the first sentence is not directly supported in the source (though it might be said to be implied).
So I'm asking you to consider reverting your deletion of a sentence that is both accurate (FCHS opened in 1990) and germane to the topic of the paragraph. Cheers. Unschool04:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Not sure I follow. The first sentence is supported by the Calnan source. That source is there for both the part about surprising the creators and the 800 organizations with "First Coast" in the name. The First Coast High School bit isn't mentioned there (or the other included sources) and if anything, it makes the first part appear to be unsourced as well. I wouldn't object to it being reintroduced so long as it has its own source.--Cúchullaint/c14:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
Hello!
The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.
Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.
The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.
The article does not use bold text correctly (see MOS:BOLD), and the list of publications is also far too long compared to the rest of the article. Additionally, information about living people should never be added without proper citations: The PhD student section in particular is problematic for lack of sources, and general Wikipedia convention is to only include people on lists like that if they are independently notable (i.e. if they have an article about them that we can link to).
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Rosguill}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
@Rosguill: I was curious when I saw this comment on the talk page of such an experienced editor so followed the link... to discover that Cuchullain had created a redirect, which was then turned into an article (twice) by LumaNatic, a Wikipedian in Residence who doesn't know how to format section headings. It's a failing of a lot of our software that it doesn't identify the real page creator where there has been an overwritten redirect. PamD06:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
PamD, ack, my bad, and I thought I had double checked this! The funny thing is that we have software that does reliably detect the correct author, such as the draftify tool. The page curation tool is just a unique mess in my experience. signed, Rosguilltalk06:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
@Rosguill: Not unique in this respect:I was plagued by 19k notifications that Districts of Russia had been linked to (it's linked from an infobox) until someone helpfully did a work-round to remove my initial creation of a redirect. PamD06:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
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.
Would you mind reverting your close at Tommy? I did not get a chance to participate and would like to. Especially since the result is opposite of a recent similar decision at Thriller (album). I think it needs more discussion and there is no hurry. I note the discussion, though it had been relisted, was still active a few hours before you closed. Thanks. —-В²C☎07:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Born2cycle: Sorry for the delay, I've been busy with the Thanksgiving holiday. Normally I'd have no problem reopening if someone wanted to provide more input, but in this case I'm not sure it would be productive. I don't think one additional comment would have swayed the outcome, and the discussion was effectively stale already - besides one comment, there had been no discussion for eight days, longer than a full RM period. I acknowledge that the outcome is different than the one at Thriller, but the new addition to WP:INCDAB makes it clear this is decided on a case by case basis - "In individual cases consensus may determine that a parenthetically disambiguated title has a primary topic..." In this case it's clear the consensus was for full disambiguation, which apparently wasn't the case at Thriller in the estimation of the closer. Additionally, while this isn't a reason not to reopen on its own, a lot of work has been put into updating the links.--Cúchullaint/c16:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I understand all that. I think this one slipped under the radar, many besides me missed it, and it was misconstrued by the proposer and some of the participants. In particular, proposer references Talk:Thriller (Michael Jackson album) as if it supports their proposal, when in fact that article is of course at Thriller (album). Another participant referred to it, and who knows how many were swayed by this despite not mentioning it. Furthermore, the reason it was stale for a week is because it was moving down the queue. Once it got to the end where it got some attention again, you closed it. For all these reasons I really think it needs to be re-opened and given further consideration by more of the community. Thanks. --В²C☎21:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree with B2C that this is a puzzling decision. Most of the "supports" cite WP:INCDAB which, as you acknowledge above, now explicitly allows for incomplete titles to be redirects in situations where they are clear primary topics, to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. So a !vote which just says "per WP:INCDAB" is not actually supported by INCDAB and should be given much less weight. The oppose votes, and evidence, clearly support the assertion that this is overwhelmingly the most primary of the albums called Tommy, something which the supports did not successfully refute. At best this is a clear no consensus. For the record I would also !vote to oppose the move, and I second B2C's request to reopen or reclose. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
As a non-participant, Cúchullain's closure rationale doesn't strike me as inappropriate and I don't see anything to suggest it was closed erroneously or prematurely. It's reasonable that any result to move an article will be seen as incorrect by those who oppose it, and certainly reasonable to be disappointed at missing an RM you would have liked to participate in, but neither seems like a sufficient reason to re-open or revert. ╠╣uw[talk]10:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
@Huwmanbeing: thanks for your comment, and I agree with the first part of what you say - taken at face value this is not a poor close, and Cuchullain is someone I respect greatly, so it could hardly be otherwise. That said, though, as an experienced closer myself, if I get a request for a relist after a close, and I think there's a genuine chance that new points could be made that might yield a different outcome, I would always relist such a discussion. Relists are incredibly cheap, and it's far better to allow the debate to continue than to insist that everyone must move on just because the "deadline" expired. In this case, both B2C and myself have indicated that we wish to provide reasons in opposition to the move of this long-term title, and I expect and hope that Cuchullain will relist this for a further week, so that we are able to do so. That's not unreasonable, and obviously you'll be welcome to comment in the relisted discussion too if you have any particular views on this matter. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 13:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Amakuru: That's fine, and the choice is of course Cúchullain's. In fairness, though, it's not necessarily "incredibly cheap" given that updates have seemingly already been made based on the result of the RM. Is undoing those changes also part of the request?
If the intent is to start a discussion to explore new rationales that no one has yet presented, that sounds like an argument for proposing a new RM later, not necessarily reverting a completed one that closed correctly based on the reasonable participation that it elicited. I do understand the disappointment of missing a discussion; I myself have on many occasions missed RMs that I would very much liked to have participated in, but insisting they be re-opened seems more disruptive than simply being patient and preparing one's arguments for a fresh RM in due course. Just my $0.02. ╠╣uw[talk]14:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
That would be a good point Huw, if the request to reopen/relist had occurred months or at least weeks after the close. In this case the close occurred on Nov 26[2], just two hours after an oppose was added [3], suggesting the discussion was active and ongoing, and I requested the reopen/relist only two days later. Indeed I wanted to add onto to what that last oppose participant had said. And now Amakuru does as well; I wouldn't be surprised if there are others. And as Cuchullain noted above, the work required to undo the close is not a factor in considering whether to reopen/relist. A lot of time and energy is being spent discussing whether to reopen/relist, when it could be better spent discussing the RM itself. --В²C☎17:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure that a single comment over eight days qualifies as active and ongoing discussion. Anyhow, if the concern truly is how best to spend time and energy, I'd gently suggest that working to pry open closed RMs probably isn't it. ╠╣uw[talk]18:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Huwmanbeing pretty much sums up my thoughts on this. I think at this point we have to consider this discussion stale. Typically I have no problem re-opening if someone wants to participate, but in this case my initial comment stands - my estimation is that the discussion was well and stale even then, and the consensus was clear to me. For the record, I did weigh the strength of the arguments, and I found the supports compelling, especially given that (1) the recent changes to INCDAB are clear it's a matter of case-by-case consensus, and (2) the wording gives no clear guidance on how to make that determination except to say the "threshold... is higher." I don't read that passage as saying that partial disambiguation should be used once some threshold is passed, only that it may be if the consensus says it should. But clearly, people have more to say. In that event I think the more productive way forward will be a fresh discussion at some point in the future, rather than reopening this. That said, I'm sorry that folks feel they missed out on this discussion, and that I couldn't be more active earlier (I'm still catching up with the time off from the holiday). I hope that as the weeks and months pass, consensus will emerge about when exactly partial disambiguation is appropriate.--Cúchullaint/c21:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Even though that apparent consensus was likely based on the misleading references to the Thriller example? Or are you ignoring that? —-В²C☎07:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Well, the Tommy RM was opened on Nov 6, and the nom linked to Talk:Thriller (Michael Jackson album), not directly to the RM discussion there, which in and of itself implies the Thriller album is an example to follow. That RM had started on Nov 4. But of course it was resolved with a move as proposed, and since then the old Talk:Thriller (album) was moved to Talk:Thriller (Michael Jackson album) by Sceptre, which now has a link to an archived 2017 RM discussion, which confused me. In any case, later in the Tommy discussion, on Nov 16, another user referred to Thriller as if it was a supportive example, when in fact it had been moved to the contrary by then (moved on Nov 13). All that, plus the contribution hours before your close opposing based on primary topic, all adds up to enough confusion to be reopened for further consideration and discussion. I'm reluctant to do it, but if you insist, by continuing to refuse to revert/relist, I will go the Move Review route. Why you think that's better, I just don't understand. --В²C☎18:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
On the contrary, I think it would be a waste of everyone's time and energy to go to move review, and that you'd be better served opening a fresh RM at a later time, as I said. But of course that's your choice to make.--Cúchullaint/c18:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Except if you reopen/relist, only a lack of consensus has to be shown to prevent the move again. If we start a fresh RM at a later time, a new consensus will have to be shown to move it back. I think a lack of community consensus for the move you made is the actual situation, and it's likely there won't be consensus to move it back either. It's only through confusion and lack of attention that a temporary local consensus appeared to be there in the discussion you closed, now difficult to fix, unless you reopen/relist. --В²C☎18:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I think the intention was to redirect to the DAB since the Thriller (album) redirecting to the fully disambiguated title has been deprecated. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Station1 & Crouch, Swale: Sorry for the delay, I've been busy with Thanksgiving. I left it redirecting to the album only to avoid breaking links for the time being. Ultimately, I intended for the standard practice of redirecting the partial disambiguation to the dab page. As the links have all been fixed now, I think it's good to go.--Cúchullaint/c16:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
An RfC on the administrator resysop criteria was closed. 18 proposals have been summarised with a variety of supported and opposed statements. The inactivity grace period within which a new request for adminship is not required has been reduced from three years to two. Additionally, Bureaucrats are permitted to use their discretion when returning administrator rights.
It is not an improvement. Please stop making this unnecessary changes and reverting, or it's very likely the article will get protected again and you may be blocked from editing.--Cúchullaint/c15:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
.png){kind=logo}
