User talk:Cuchullain/Archive 35

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Problem with Guinevere

I just noticed all the categories for her are categories for actual persons, and I think they should be replaced with fictional character categories and maybe Gwenhwyfar made for a more historical legendary figure (similar to Gwenhwyfach's). I'm writing for you to decide about, and do it yourself if it's a right thing. I also placed a notificvation on the article's talk page. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 11:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I did it myself already. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 12:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, she should not be included in categories that are exclusively for historical people, but there are some that she should still be in Category:British traditional history is specifically for Geoffrey-inspired pseudohistory. I don't think there should be a separate article for Gwenhwyfar; there's no real light between those versions of the character, and the Welsh Gwenhwyfar is every bit as legendary as the Continental versions (notably, her father was a giant).--Cúchullain t/c 14:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
False dichotomy; the euhemerization of historical figures (and even peoples) into legendary ones is a different process from invention of fictional characters. The continental material is mostly pure fiction from individual minds, and isn't legend, a cultural process, though some of it was assimilated into later folklore in Britain, as Christian elements were in Irish legend after the monks got involved in recording but altering the stories.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  20:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Everything "Arthurian legend‎" (Wikipedia category) is within "British traditional history" (and "Welsh folklore", too). Maybe it shouldn't, but it's as it is right now. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 16:12, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

That is as it should be, except for purely fictional elements added to the cycle, e.g. Lancelot, an invention of French writers and not found in any of the original British material; he's neither part of Welsh folklore nor British traditional history, but post-dates both. Articles on Guinevere, etc., need to be clear (probably with a section break) which aspects of their surviving stories are material made up by people like Marie de France and Chrétien de Troyes and Wolfram von Eschenbach later (and Thomas Mallory and Alfred Lord Tennyson later still, for that matter – being on the Continent vs. Great Britain isn't a wholly accurate dividing line, as some legit British legend remained in Breton tradition, while the later English rulers and people around them were mostly Norman French keenly interested in injecting French stuff into British legend). The same care needs to be taken here as with Irish mythology and the Christian layers placed on top of it. Doing this properly requires a high level of subject-matter expertise, as even many generally reliable sources on Arthurian works do not take sufficient care to separate Brythonic legend from Franco-Romance fiction (especially in works primarily concerned with the late medieval to modern form of the stories as literary works). Some of the stock characters by Mallory's time were entirely fictional and had sometimes directly displaced original Welsh characters, while others were just injected in the middle, sometimes with profound effects on the subject matter (e.g., Lancelot and the demonization of Guinevere as an adulteress).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  20:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd also propose merging tiny stub articles in the style of Erec into some sort of list, at least until they're properly developeed. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 18:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. By the way, have you considered registering an account? I can see you're doing quite a bit of work on these articles.--Cúchullain t/c 18:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
@94.246.150.68: Some of these are major proposals and may not go over well (even where they make the most sense, which a Gwenhwyfar split does not) if coming from an anon, especially if the IP address ever changes. That said, a mass merger is unlikely to be supportable, because there is virtually never going to be a case in which an Arthurian character cannot pass WP:GNG. It's highly unlikely that any of these characters have not been subject to in-depth coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources; e.g. Gawain[e] alone has been the subject of literally hundreds of journal articles over the last century or so, and multiple entire non-fiction books. WP:STUB articles are entirely permissible; we have tens of thousands of them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  20:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
A mass merger would probably be fine if it improved the sourcing in these articles. Very many of the character articles have no sources at all - I know, I wrote many of them back before inline citations were a requirement on Wikipedia. Better to have one good article than dozens of bad ones.--Cúchullain t/c 19:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Closure of the Statue of Margaret Thatcher moves

Hi Cuchullain. Regarding the RM you closed last Friday as "No move", on the basis that there is "a clear absence of consensus for the proposed moves", I should note that the two articles were only recently moved to their present titles less than a month ago on the dubious basis that there was a consensus to move the articles in favour of parenthetical disambiguation. There was no such consensus, as only two editors agreed to the move. Neither I nor the nominator of that move agreed with the parenthetical proposal, so I would argue that the articles should not have been to their present title in the first place. There is indeed a clear absence of consensus for the title of that article, and as such the comma-disambiguation ought to be brought back.--Nevé–selbert 06:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Neve-selbert: The move request was for a different location than where they were originally, and no one suggested moving back to that title, so it would not be appropriate to return it there. There also wasn't the level of support for returning to comma disambiguation in general that would lead me to move there over the arguments of the majority of participants who favored parenthetical disambiguation.--Cúchullain t/c 18:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I have to disagree with your assertion that it would be inappropriate to move the articles back. To the contrary, it would be the most appropriate thing to do. There was absolutely no consensus for comma disambiguation at any point. Furthermore, it's quite misleading to state that a majority of participants back comma disambiguation, as several editors were on the fence. I am thinking of taking to this WP:MOVEREVIEW, as it seems like the only possible way forward at this point.--Nevé–selbert 03:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I get where you're coming from, but in this case I don't think moving back to a title that literally no one wanted (and where the previous consensus was to move away from) would be the best option. As was pointed out in that discussion, the statue is not in the Guildhall Art Gallery, so Statue of Margaret Thatcher, Guildhall Art Gallery is no longer an accurate title. To reiterate, there was a lack of consensus to move away from the present title - and given that parenthetical disambiguation is the default option on Wikipedia, there'd need to be a clear consensus to restore comma disambiguation, not to mention consensus on the disambiguation should actually be. Here, the consensus was the opposite. You can try move review if you wish, but you'd need to show that the close was out of process and the spirit of WP:RMCD.--Cúchullain t/c 13:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
This is a WP:CONSISTENCY problem, as SMcCandlish pointed out. Most of the articles in Category:Statues of heads of government, Category:Statues of monarchs use comma and not parenthetical disambiguation. I must reiterate that there was never any consensus for comma disambiguation, and BD2412's decision to close the move as if there was one was simply wrong. WP:MOVEREVIEW is a last resort, although I would like to hear BD2412 explain why he controversially moved the two articles.--Nevé–selbert 14:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
It appears that a number of articles in both those categories use parenthetical disambiguation, so I don't see this as much of a consistency problem, other than the problem that there is none. Not to speak for BD2412, but I imagine he understood the article had to be moved, as the previous title was no longer correct, and reckoned the arguments of the two participants who explicitly backed parenthetical disambiguation to be strong enough to take that option. As I say, parentheses are the default option.--Cúchullain t/c 14:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
They may be the default option, but as comma disambiguation is the norm I do think that BD2412 should have taken extra caution in moving the two articles. There is a consistency issue insofar as most statue-related articles use comma rather than parenthetical disambiguation. I guess I'm just repeating now, but I think a move review is the only way forward if BD2412 declines to reconsider the moves. For the record, neither statue is officially named "Statue of Margaret Thatcher", and per WP:NATURALDIS parenthetical disambiguation should only be used when when none of the other solutions lead to an optimal article title.--Nevé–selbert 14:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I think that's really reaching. Comma disambiguation is not the "norm" - while more statue articles may use it, enough use parentheses that there's no real consistency. The comma-disambiguated version is also not WP:NATURALDIS, which means "an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called". Both the parenthetical and comma format are forms of non-natural disambiguation in this case, and the parenthetical version is the norm for articles that aren't place names.--Cúchullain t/c 15:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. There isn't a city or town named "Statue of Margaret Thatcher", so comma disambiguation is inconsistent with the rest of the encyclopedia generally. bd2412 T 16:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Parentheses are not the "default option" though; both WP:AT policy and WP:DAB are clear that we prefer natural disambiguation when it is available; that often resolves to a comma-delimited construction when it comes to geographical names. That said, I don't have any issue with the "No move" result. This is something that should be settled by an RfC and made clearer in the geographic naming conventions, then handled for all the statue article with a mass technical move (whether that be to comma, parentheses, or otherwise – whatever the RfC concludes). I also don't care much, so I'm not going to write the RfC.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  20:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Natural disambiguation is preferred, but here, no one identified a natural disambiguation option. In this case, the comma is not natural disambiguation, so that's a moot point.--Cúchullain t/c 20:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Also, to qualify as natural disambiguation, I think we'd need to see reliable sources using the same form. Otherwise it is simply an "unnatural" convention applied arbitrarily by Wikipedians to achieve necessary disambiguation — in which case we'd be better off using parenthetical disambiguation to make the arbitrariness of the convention apparent. older ≠ wiser 20:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
False dichotomy. It is natural disambiguation (it fits a pattern of "very-specific-location-or-structure + comma + less-specific placename" found in natural-language English, though an argument has been made that it's not the most natural for British topics, because the more common British style is to use "in" rather than a comma. Non-natural comma disambiguation is the use of a comma as a separator in a way that no one uses in natural English, e.g. the comma in "List of FooBars, A–M" (a style of subclassification borrowed from formalized governmental/military writing – "Meals, Ready to Eat", etc.). RS won't regularly use the comma construction for these statues because they use "in", "at", or some other longer construction; i.e., the argument "show it to me in RS" applies just as much to your preference for parenthetic.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  21:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Natural disambiguation specifically means a "an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called". There's no evidence that this statue was ever called "Statue of Margaret Thatcher, Guildhall Art Gallery" in reliable sources, let alone enough to establish it as a common alternative name. In this title, both the comma form, and the parenthetical form, are constructed disambiguation necessitated only because there are articles on two statues of Margaret Thatcher with articles.--Cúchullain t/c 21:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Let's look at it under the comma-separated disambiguation rules, then. The material there clearly uses British examples, e.g. "Windsor, Berkshire". I.e., WP policy effectively overrules the idea that an ENGVAR case can be made against using the comma in such a case just because it's British.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  21:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Re: a pattern of "very-specific-location-or-structure + comma + less-specific placename", there is no "or-structure" element to this (see, e.g. Trump Tower (White Plains), Trump Tower (Philadelphia), Statue of Liberty (Mytilene), Golden Boy (Manitoba), Fermière Monument (Montreal)). bd2412 T 21:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The statue is a structure. I don't recall anyone making the argument that zero such articles presently have parenthetic disambiguation. You're making a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. The entire point of the RM and various others is to move toward a consistent disambiguation approach. I'm not even sure I care whether it's comma or parenthetical; the problem is veering between them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  21:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, statue is a structure. It is not a location. It is therefore not the sort of thing to which comma disambiguation typically applies either in Wikipedia or in the real world. bd2412 T 01:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
WP:COMMADIS isn't limited to locations.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  21:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
As a practical matter, virtually all disambiguators other than locations are parentheticals. bd2412 T 22:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
(ec) the argument "show it to me in RS" applies just as much to your preference for parenthetic Baloney. Parenthetical disambiguation makes no pretense whatsoever of ever being used anywhere other than Wikipedia as the name or title of a subject. older ≠ wiser 21:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
See WP:ATDIS. There's s clear priority order of natural, comma, then parenthetic disambiguation, with parenthetic being the choice of last resort.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  21:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, for place names.--Cúchullain t/c 21:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
To achieve the necessary consistency we should probably soon look to start an RfC on all the other UK structures which are currently at comma disambiguated locations. For example the entries at Category:Statues in London and so on. As far as I know this "convention" is not written down anywhere, so it's really just a case of seeing if we can get consensus to move them all to be in line with others. Note that the equivalent category for a US location uses parentheses already: Category:Statues in New York (state). The RfC on rail stations looks to be leaning towards favouring option D at the moment as well, which puts the location in parentheses. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2017).

Administrator changes

added Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93
removed Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

Technical news

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Why you redirected my article?

I have a new content different from what you directed. Please don't mess up my page that I did with much research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobbijo1 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Jacobbijo1: I redirected because much of the material was dubious or redundant, and I can't verify that your one source is reliable. Please let me know if you have any other questions.--Cúchullain t/c 15:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. If you cannot verify my source, please ask me and I can send you proof. But please don't delete the whole matter as you did before. It is upsetting after many days of my hard work. The content I posted in "Knanaya Catholics" is different from "Knanaya". I am still working on it seeking more sources that I have collected. The "Knanaya" page is giving much lies about the Knanaya community. Someone or some group is playing dirty game with your Encycloedia to tarnish the community. I believe it is not appropriate for an Encyclopedia. I don't want to "fight" with them. Many community members are upset with what they are doing with an Encyclopedia. So the Catholic Section of the Knanaya Community leaders requested me to help on this. That is why I used a different page with reliable and different matter. If you have question, please feel free to contact me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobbijo1 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Netoholic

Hello, I see that here you asked Netoholic to stop making massive movement in articles of telenovelas, but evidently it does not stop. Clearly this is something that must be discussed, but not in the way that the user does, because it is something conflicting. He has recently imposed his will on these articles: Elisa (1979 TV series), and Honrarás a los tuyos (1959 TV series), and others. Obviously I am not the only user who opposes this, there is more, for example here. And as I said before, it is something that should be discussed with the whole community and reach a consensus. But obviously it is something that worries and annoys.--Philip J Fry / talk 12:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Philip J Fry, I'll look into it.--Cúchullain t/c 16:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2017).

Administrator changes

added Joe Roe
readded JzG
removed Ericorbit • Perceval • Thingg • Tristanb • Violetriga

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
  • The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Cuchullain. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rum and coke, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Calypso (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Owain Ddanwyn

Hi - was wondering if you could moderate a dispute? User: Dimadick will not stop edit warring over the Owain Ddanwyn article and refuses to discuss it in the talk section. The issue is, (s)he keept trying to re-insert very fringe material about him being the "real" King Arthur that has literally zero support in the Arthurian scholarly community. In fact (and this is noted in Peter Batrum's essential and highly regarded Welsh Classical Dictionary), nothing is known about Owain Ddanwyn - he is merely a name in a few old pedigrees. Cagwinn (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

You mention a source, but you have not included it in the article. You have ignored my requests to add citations to the unsupported material. Dimadick (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of your source, I did not find reviews on the Welsh Classical Dictionary. But I found a source on the methodology behind it: https://www.llgc.org.uk/en/discover/digital-gallery/printed-material/a-welsh-classical-dictionary/

"A Welsh Classical Dictionary, people in History and Legend up to about A.D. 1000, was published by the National Library of Wales in 1993. In his introduction P.C. Bartrum refers to the volume as ‘a series of notes arranged alphabetically under personal names and a few place-names’ which ‘are the result of many years of working in the field of early Welsh history, legend and fiction, and are to some extent biased towards subjects which were of personal interest’ to him, with ‘a leaning towards genealogy and to the development of historical ideas’. He has attempted to ‘give the essential outlines of legends and fictions, generally telling the stories without comment, interpretation or speculation.’"

In other words, he offers no interpretations of the primary sources. Dimadick (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Cagwinn and Dimadick: I'll weigh in over at the article. Cagwinn is correct that the Arthurian connection is bupkis and that virtually nothing is known of Owain. However, the purported Arthurian connection should stay with proper critical sourcing.--Cúchullain t/c 18:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Dimadick, among Arthurian scholars, Bartrum (who passed not too long ago) is highly regarded as one of the premiere experts on medieval Welsh pedigrees/genealogies - in fact, his book Early Welsh Genealogical Texts remains the standard text on the subject - and his Welsh Classical Dictionary is also held in high regard. The fact that you don't know this demonstrates that you have no business editing this article, or any others concerning early medieval Welsh historical figures. Cagwinn (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Don't be a dick, Cagwinn.--Cúchullain t/c 20:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but it's the truth. I am very tired of people who don't even have a basic understanding of a subject, no less familiarity with the leading scholars in the field making ridiculous edits that favor the fringiest of fringe sources. I would never even dream of editing an article on WP if I wasn't thoroughly confident that I was sufficiently informed on the subject. Few editors seem to hold themselves to such standards, sad to say. Cagwinn (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
As you've done various times in the past, you're escalating what was a fairly minor issue, even after it was resolved. It's time to deescalate now. I'm confident Dimadick can edit the article and others constructively, especially now that they have access to Bartrum.--Cúchullain t/c 21:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
OK, will leave it your judgment. Cagwinn (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Cagwinn: See what you think now. Bartrum doesn't seem to say what "Danwyn" means, so please add something if you have it. Actually any additional sources you might have would be most appreciated.--Cúchullain t/c 23:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Modern Welsh Danwyn (Old Welsh dantguin) means "white-tooth". Cagwinn (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Owain Danwyn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Rhos

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who like NationStates

Hey! Based on your edits to NationStates, I thought maybe you would be interested that I started a series of userboxes for the game. Feel free to add any or add your own!-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 06:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Page move of Everett Station

Could the page move of Everett Station be reverted? The proper name of the station includes the word "station", and per WP:USSTATION it should be capitalized in the article title. SounderBruce 00:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I have boldly decided to undo it myself. If there's any problems, feel free to drop me a line. SounderBruce 01:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Best wishes for 2018, Cúchullain

Thank you Cúchullain
for the dedicated years
you have devoted to Wikipedia
and for your kindness and consideration.
I look forward to the pleasure of
many additional years of
editing alongside you.

Happy New Year 2018!

—Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 03:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Roman Spinner! Happy New Year!--Cúchullain t/c 20:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2017).

Administrator changes

added Muboshgu
readded Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned
removed None

Bureaucrat changes

readded Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited North Quincy station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page North Quincy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Planet of the Apes copyedit?

Nice work in boiling this now sprawling topic down to its encyclopedic essence. How would you feel about my giving it a bit of a copyediting polish. It's already in strong shape. I just see a few spots where the prose could be tighter or flow better. Would love to help you get it over the FA finish line. DocKino (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

DocKino: Of course! I'd appreciate any help you could offer. I'm in the middle of an unsaved edit I've been doing for a few days and plan to make another edit to address some of the concerns at the FA, but I'll wrap it up quickly and you can have at it. Thanks again.--Cúchullain t/c 21:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Terrific. No rush—ping me whenever. DocKino (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Should be good to go now, thanks again DocKino. I'm having trouble finding material to make one addition suggested by Ceoil, so I'm going to have to back to my sources on that one.--Cúchullain t/c 22:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Cúchullain, have supported now; that you are struggling to find material on my suggestion suggests that it isn't so much covered or germane. Ceoil (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Two SEPTA station names

Could you move Fortuna (SEPTA station) and St. Davids (SEPTA station) to their proper names? I can't seem to move them, possibly a consequence of their previous moves. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Pi.1415926535: Done. The edit history was blocking the move. Let me know if you see any more like this.--Cúchullain t/c 17:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

"Former country" infobox added to tribal cultures in prehistoric Florida

Since you have edited a number of these articles in the past, whats your opinion on adding the infobox for "former countries" to ethnic, tribal and village organizations in the late prehistoric, protohistoric and early historic Florida and southeastern region? Another editor has begun adding the infobox (which I disagree with) to a number of these articles, sometimes removing and replacing other infoboxes in the process. ( see Tacatacuru revision history, Uzita (Florida), Pohoy , Tocobaga) The editor, User:Mangokeylime, seems to have a thing for infoboxes. Per our recent interactions (User:Mangokeylime#Mound Builders box and Talk:Mississippian culture#Mound Builders navbox) I'd rather have some neutral parties knowledgeable of the subjects to weigh in rather than me jumping in unilaterally on this issue. Thanks, and kind regards, Heiro 03:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Heironymous Rowe: I agree with you, I don't think the infobox is an improvement, and when it replaces the ethnic group infobox, it removes more pertinent info like the language links. The dates also give false/misleading info in some cases. I'll remove the ones I can find.--Cúchullain t/c 15:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Constantine (Briton)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Constantine (Briton) 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 SpartaN -- SpartaN (talk) 07:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Constantine (Briton)

The article Constantine (Briton) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Constantine (Briton) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SpartaN -- SpartaN (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Station renaming

You may be interested in Talk:Downtown New Britain (CDOT station) where a renaming is suggested. They need you to set them straight. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Vikings

Thanks for your well reasoned close at Talk:Vikings (2013 TV series)#Requested move 13 January 2018. Are you able to look at Talk:Vikings (TV documentary series)#Requested move 14 January 2018 as well? It seems sensible to close the two at the same time, as an editor is already threatening a new move discussion for Vikings (2013 TV series), so would be good to put them both to bed. --woodensuperman 10:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Woodensuperman: it hasn't elapsed yet, but I'll take a look when it does.--Cúchullain t/c 15:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I see it has been closed by a non-admin. Should such a controversial discussion been closed by a non-admin? Especially in view of the recent amended guideline at WP:NCTV which tells us not to disambiguate by genre. --woodensuperman 10:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
They probably should have left it to an admin, but it's hard to argue against their rationale given the way the discussion went, as well as other recent discussions about using genre disambiguators. Definitely a line call. If you wish you can bring it up with the closer, and go to move review if you still think their reasoning was faulty.--Cúchullain t/c 15:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I've popped something on their talk page. May take to move review, given that the naming guideline (which was changed whilst the discussion was underway) now specifically mentions that genre should not be used. --woodensuperman 16:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
It's at move review now. --woodensuperman 15:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Magic Move

Hi Bill; I just saw that you closed the proposed move over at "Magic (paranormal)". If you don't mind, I'd like to open up a Move Review regarding that decision. You stated that there was no consensus, but frankly I think that there is a very clear consensus. I originally suggested moving the page to "Magic (study of religion)"; that wasn't very popular. However, there are at least eight statements of support that the article be instead moved to "Magic"; conversely, there was only one neutral statement and two in opposition. That's a pretty clear consensus in my book. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I don’t mind, but I’ll explain a bit first. I did take that suggestion into account, but no one made clear arguments that this is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. In fact, the opposite was stated by one participant. And there wasn’t strong enough support for the suggestion to override the primary topic issue.—Cúchullain t/c 01:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me, Bill. I've taken the issue to Move Review as I really think that this one needs looking into. All the best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Move review for Magic (paranormal)

An editor has asked for a Move review of Magic (paranormal). 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. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who like Black Mirror

Hey! I saw that you edited the article Black Mirror and thought maybe you would be interested in this new user category I created?-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 10:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

DoctorWho42: Thanks for the offer! Not too much of an infobox guy myself.--Cúchullain t/c 14:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
  • Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news

  • A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

what a mess

Why not just repoint the incdab redirects rather than wholesale reverting the moves themselves? Or why not let me know that the old redirects should be pointed to the DAB pages and let me fix it? -- Netoholic @ 21:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Redirecting them would have created hundreds of broken links, and I didn't have time to fix them all. And honestly, I don't know that all of them are the right move. At this stage I think most of the ones I reverted are controversial enough that there should be an RM - I started an RM for Portal (series), and so far it's only drawn opposes, with some comments indicating the TV series may not be notable. If there are any in the group that are indisputably uncontroversial, feel free to move them back if you take the time to fix the redirects and incoming links, but otherwise it's better to err on the side of caution and bring them to RM.--Cúchullain t/c 22:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm really curious what you mean by "fix broken links". Every move I did, I ensured double redirects were fixed and any important nav templates were updated to bypass the redirect. Now, there is some lag in that pages with those nav templates on them will still show in the whatlinkshere as pointing to the old name, but that is temporary until those pages are "touched" again. I also did a great deal of AWB work fixing redirects that required extra attention. Is it your idea that after a move ALL pages MUST bypass the redirects? -- Netoholic @ 23:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
When I looked at Portal, there were still dozens if not hundreds of incoming links to Portal (series). Meaning, if I or anyone had just redirected Portal (series) to the dab page, it would have broken all those links by sending them to the dab page. As I didn't have the time or inclination to fix them all myself, the simplest solution was to revert your bold move and put it to RM. It's a good thing I did, as the move was obviously controversial, looking at how the discussion is going.--Cúchullain t/c 16:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Those links were false positives caused by the caching problem with the nav templates I noted above. Also, people will invent controversy if given the chance. Those ppl know I moved the page BOLDly already, and didn't revert because I think they know the right course of action, but given the chance they object for spurious reasons inconsistent with our guidelines. -- Netoholic @ 04:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Move review: Sarum Use

The term “rite” or “ritus” or any variation thereof is not found in the surviving Customaries or Ordinals of Sarum Use, anywhere. The only terms—used over and over and over again, for CENTURIES—are “secundum usum sarum” “ad usum sarum”, i.e., “according to the Use of Sarum”, or “in the Sarum Use”. The person who called this a “made-up phrase” was making it up himself. Given the abundance of information available online for this topic, including numerous transcriptions and translations of primary sources, it boggles the mind that one article from a Catholic encyclopdia from 100 years was the sad bit of evidence presented, when there is so much legitimate scholarship on this topic.

Start here for ALL of the surviving Customaries: http://www.sarumcustomary.org.uk/. Search on “usum” in each of the Latin or Latin-English customaries, and you will readily see how common this term is. Search on “ritus” or “ritu”, and you will find nothing. English “rite” was used to translated “obsequium”, which is too bad.

Then go here for the (so-far) only full transcription of the so-called Old Ordinal: sarum-chant.ca, tab ‘More Documents’, ‘Ordinale Sarisburiensis’. Do the same searches, and you'll get the same results, including a long bibliography of all the primary sources that use the phrase in the title of the liturgical books. MonteGargano (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

MonteGargano: I closed the article as not moved, as your request had gotten no support and no one identified a title that was more common than the present one. You can take this to move review if you really want, but you'd need to show that the close failed according to Wikipedia article titles policy or the WP:RMCI.--Cúchullain t/c 18:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Cúchullain: I’ve never dealt with this before, and I thought I was following the protocol by contacting you first. The policy in question is “[Closer] was unaware of significant additional information not discussed”; actually, nothing significant was discussed, and the evidence presented was spurious. Further, I did not open this request. I merely stumbled upon it today and decided to follow up on it. I check this article from time to time for nonsense, and today was one of those days. MonteGargano (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
No worries. However, I stand by my close. I don't think that new information is relevant. The only relevant matter is what is the WP:COMMONNAME. There was no evidence that other names were more common, though "Sarum rite" is certainly in use in reliable secondary sources.--Cúchullain t/c 19:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
It's hard to say that “Sarum Rite” is the "common name" when the very footnotes in the article refer exclusively to “Sarum Use” in all the primary sources and academic secondary sources. Some of the popular articles use the phrase “Sarum Rite”; but non-academic chit-chats and the popular press are a poor foundation for any genuinely academic article. MonteGargano (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
The link I gave shows many sources do use "Sarum Rite". "Sarum Use" would likely also be an acceptable title, but it didn't receive support in the discussion.--Cúchullain t/c 20:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Supposedly

There was quite a bit of energy and discussion around that removal. I won't disagree with restoring it, but there are waves of editors who show up on occasion attempting to radically alter the article. I just about worse myself out defending it on the talk page but got out-numbered. If you would like to keep this article on your watchlist, it would help the next time they return for another assault rather than me doing it alone which doesn't look good. There are apparently people who are True Believers in a Medieval Dark Age who see the article as revisionist nonsense or opinion essay. -- GreenC 18:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC

Sorry, I somehow missed the last round of discussion, but have been present for many previous ones. Something that long-standing and roundly discussed shouldn't have been changed without a much clearer consensus than appeared in that discussion.--Cúchullain t/c 18:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018).

Administrator changes

added Lourdes†
removed AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V
† Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news

  • The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
  • Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
  • A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
  • A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news

  • CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
  • The edit filter has a new feature contains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

Miscellaneous

Obituaries

  • Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Move review

Hi, while closing the discussion on Requested move 8 March 2018, relating the recently reduced title of general article on anti-Eastern Orthodox sentiment, you decided to keep the reduced title, in spite of fact that majority of participants in the discussion supported the full-scope proposals like anti-Eastern Orthodox sentiment or anti-Eastern Orthodoxy. I hope that you also saw what has happened recently, when the reduction of scope to "persecution" only was made without consensus. That was followed by move review discussion here. That discussion resulted in one reviewer initiating the new move and proposing the restoration of the full-scope title, while other reviewer also supported the full-scope title during the discussion on the proposed move. Proposals for full-scope title were actually supported by majority of participants, I hope that you noticed that. So please, would your take another look at the votes and then reconsider the final conclusion? I am addressing you on this subject, because such procedure is indicated on the Wikipedia:Move review page. Sorabino (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I didn't catch that the new RM was opened after the move review. That's fairly irregular, as it opened before the MR had closed. I'm convinced that there's a consensus to move (indeed, there's consensus against anti-Eastern Orthodox sentiment), however I'll reopen the RM and relist it for more input.--Cúchullain t/c 15:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, you are right, majority preferred anti-Eastern Orthodoxy rather than anti-Eastern Orthodox sentiment, and both solutions are OK since they are covering the full scope of the article. Thank you for reopening the discussion, we need more participants on complex subjects like this. Sorabino (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2018).

Administrator changes

added 331dot • Cordless Larry • ClueBot NG
removed Gogo Dodo • Pb30 • Sebastiankessel • Seicer • SoLando

Guideline and policy news

  • Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
  • Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
  • The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
  • The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.

Miscellaneous

  • A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
  • The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Peckerwood, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blackbird (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Silversmith Hotel

Hi Cuchullain, I read the discussion at Talk:Silversmith Hotel#Requested move 30 March 2018 as sufficient evidence of consensus for a move to Silversmith Building; after the introduction of the suggestion six hours after the discussion started, it appears that only the nominator objected to the idea, while several editors supported it. Would you be willing to revisit this decision, and/or clarify that another move request can be initiated? I'm not interested in taking this to WP:MR either way, but the direction of the conversation looked clear to me. Best, Dekimasuよ! 17:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dekimasu. Though several people suggested it, I didn't see a strong consensus or argument for using "Silversmith Building". No one gave evidence that this was more common, for example. However, I can reopen the discussion and relist it if you like.--Cúchullain t/c 17:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I understand. Relisting sounds like a good compromise. I believe that the argument was based upon the building's relative notability as a hotel rather than the relative prominence of each search phrase. Since that's closer to an editorial decision on scope, it makes sense to want more evidence of consensus in favor of a move. Thanks for your reply. Dekimasuよ! 18:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Gridiron Football

Bill - I'm wondering why your removed the explanation of the long-ago shift from a cross-grid layout of the field to today's basically non-cross-grid layout. It addresses a question that a lot of people have, "why do they call it a grid?", and supplies some hard-to-find and long-forgotten history to answer it. When I saw your reversion, I looked at the talk page, with its huge amount of minor contention, disagreement, requests for change, etc. Maybe the business about the "grid lines" belongs in another article. BTW, "grid" has many meanings, but it seems to me that the common one involves an orthogonal crossed-lines pattern, such as found on graph paper, city streets, etc. When I think of "grid", that's what first comes to mind, even though I'm quite familiar with the vertical spiral component of a vacuum tube, and of the amorphous nature of the electrical grid. Lou Sander (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Lou Sander. I removed the material because it conflicts with what the sources say about the origin of the term.[1][2][3] They say it's talking about the parallel yard lines, not the "grid" pattern made with the yardlines crossed with the historical lengthwise lines. This makes sense, as the cooking gridiron usually only has yardline-like bars. The source you added, which was from 1905, doesn't support what you added. In fact, on page 29, it says the field is still called a "gridiron" in spite of, rather than because of the checkerboard pattern of the day, supporting the notion that the name came from the yard lines.--Cúchullain t/c 17:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I (just a bit reluctantly) have to agree with you. It looks like the original field didn't have the "grid" pattern, but that such a pattern came into being with a rules change. I hope you will agree that, to me and many others, "grid" calls up images of crossing lines. Even if "gridiron" means today's layout, it seems to me that the past existence of the crossed-lines pattern deserves some mention and explanation, if only because many old pictures of football fields (at least two in the Commons, but I don't know how to link to them here, plus many, but not all, in the 1905 book) show that pattern. I propose putting something about it in whatever article covers the history of American football. Assuming that it is properly presented, would you object to it? Lou Sander (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for creating Guatemala–Mexico border!Zigzig20s (talk) 17:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, thank you Zigzig20s! I appreciate it.--Cúchullain t/c 17:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Milord

Your edits to Milord were certainly overall an improvement, but you left out the information that 19th-century Continental Europeans whose jobs brought them into common contact with foreign travelers often used "milord" to address indiscriminately any male English-speakers who seemed to be rich or upper-class. Most such people didn't know or care about the fine points of British nobiliary etiquette.
I had a good quote from George Eliot that I was going to add to the article, but the bookmark fell out of the book, so now I have to go through the book to find it again (Google searches for "milord" in Eliot's writings seem to turn up bits from Daniel Deronda, which is not what I'm looking for). AnonMoos (talk) 06:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

AnonMoos: Sorry, I somehow missed this comment. When I rewrote it I removed the stuff that wasn't supported by the citations given (or that had no citation). The OED doesn't verify that part of the text, and a look at Google Books turned up nothing else that did. If there is such a source, it could certainly be added in.--Cúchullain t/c 21:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Charles A. Gallagher Transit Terminal

I think it might be better to move it back to Lowell station. Gallagher is the official name but not really the common name - while some sources use it, I've never heard anyone call the station anything but Lowell - and it may actually refer to just the train side and not the bus part. Thoughts? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, good catch. Looks like it was a search error on my part - I misspelled "Lowell station" so it turned up no results, whereas I got a few for Gallagher. However, when I Google News it now, I find a number using "Lowell station".[4] It definitely seems to be the more common version in the sources. I'll move it back and try tweak the intro wording as well.--Cúchullain t/c 18:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Repurposing a redirect

Hi, when you repurpose a redirect so that it goes to a dab page, as here, please make sure that inward links are fixed up. I've just spent 40 minutes doing these fixes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I was intending to do that once the template links weren't showing up. However, the real issue is that the article was moved through RM months ago and the redirect was never changed, leaving the base name redirecting to a disambiguated name. The lack of navigation is a worse problem than some broken links. At any rate, thanks for cleaning up the links.--Cúchullain t/c 14:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cuchullain/Archive_35&oldid=1142947606"