User talk:Amakuru

Archives: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 · 30 · 31 · 32 · 33 · 34 · 35 · 36

To keep discussions together, I've adopted the use of the {{ping}} template, and will reply here if you leave me a message. By using the ping, this ensures a notification will appear for you when I reply to your message. If I make a comment on your talk page, I will likely watch the page for replies, but please do consider using {{ping}} as well. If you do leave a comment here in response, I will respond here rather than returning to your talk page.

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Move conflict

Hey there, I think we both tried to do the same round-robin page move at the same time. See S. M. Marikkar. Should I fix it, or will you? Toadspike [Talk] 17:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

tldr; the article now redirects to what was supposed to be the new title. The new title is a redirect to itself. So the article has been vaporized and we have two nonsensical redirects. Sorry for this mess. Toadspike [Talk] 17:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Toadspike: ooh good grief, that's a silly mix-up, apologies for my part in that - we crashed right into each other! I think it's because I was busy checking the target history while you were moving the page, then I ended up moving the redirect right over the top of the article. HOpefully all sorted now anyway. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for cleaning up the mess! I knew my first round-robin move was gonna go wrong somehow... Toadspike [Talk] 18:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Toadspike: He he, not to worry. I didn't realise that was your first one! I'm sure they'll go smoothly in the future, you did the right process anyway. — Amakuru (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kuru

Why are you moving pages back that I had moved as per WP:CONSISTENT? The lists of international trips by presidents I moved were all in line with naming convention. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 03:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemant Dabral: what naming convention is that? The moves you had made did not look uncontroversial to me - particularly changing the commonly used term "state visit" to be "international trip" doesn't seem in line with our usual naming conventions. Please start a WP:RM discussion if you wish to proceed with those moves. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 10:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are more articles titled "international trips", it has more search probability and to keep all lists in consistency this title should be used. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 11:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hemant Dabral: clearly we need to iron out the nomenclature here, but that should be done through an RM if you wish to pursue it. If some articles have a bad title the solution isn't to move even more of them to have a bad title. "International trips" doesn't sound like encyclopedic tone, and also would potentially include holidays and suchlike which I don't think is the intention. "International visits" or "state visits" would be preferable. — Amakuru (talk) 12:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not some articles that have the title "international trips", all of them are tilted that way except the one related to Nicola Sturgeon. And six others titled "state visit". There are about 100 articles titled "international presidential trips" and about 60 articles titled "international prime ministerial trips". Are we going to move all these back to "visits" or is it more practical to move these seven articles to "trips"? That's the reason I made the move, otherwise I wouldn't have done that. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 15:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemant Dabral: I understand what you're saying, but you'd still need to explain to me why the word "trip" is the best choice here. I'm not here to implement the most "practical" solution, I'm here to build an encyclopedia which is the best it can be for our readers, and that means using the correct names for things according to our article titling policy. That may also mean moving other titles to be better as well. Consistency is a good aim to have if the thing you're making consistent is a good thing, but otherwise it isn't. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent addition to Unused

Hey, Amakuru. Do you think Lipid bilayer would be a good fit for File:Phospholipids aqueous solution structures.svg? Seems like it covers every structure and has several mentions of the bilayer (ofc), liposomes, and of micelles. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 16:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Cowboygilbert:... I'm actually slightly puzzled about this, because I literally started writing a POTD entry using that very article shortly before I filed the pic as unused, but then backed out because I thought the article Lipid bilayer was only covering one of the three things in the pic (since the bottom part of the diagram is explicitly labelled as "bilayer sheet". But you're absolutely right - it does cover the micelles and liposomes too, not sure how I missed that, and it's a GA too so a perfect choice for a POTD blurb. Feel free to revive it now if you like, otherwise I will do so in the next few days. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru, All good,

. I'll probably construct something but I have been focusing mainly on media for my last couple schedules. Thank you! Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 16:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 November 2024

News and notes: Open letter to WMF about court case breaks one thousand signatures, big arb case declined, U4C begins accepting cases

In the media: Summons issued for Wikipedia editors by Indian court, "Gaza genocide" RfC close in news, old admin Gwern now big AI guy, and a "spectrum of reluctance" over Australian place names

Recent research: SPINACH: AI help for asking Wikidata "challenging real-world questions"

News from the WMF: Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Endowment audit reports: FY 2023–2024

Traffic report: Well, let us share with you our knowledge, about the electoral college

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for John Prescott

On 23 November 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article John Prescott, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. —Bagumba (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you! - greetings from a trip --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gerda Arendt, I was also away over the weekend, nowhere very exciting though, just New Addington and walks in the surrounding countryside

— Amakuru (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing! - I uploaded pics of a trip that was a 10-day celebration of a 16 November event, but the day was also when a dear friend died. We sang Hevenu shalom aleichem at his funeral yesterday, and it was good. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Białystok Municipal Stadium closure of RM

Hi! For a possible move review, I want to ask about the closing of the RM on "Talk:Białystok Municipal Stadium" (I have no experience with move reviews yet, so I started to write the same thing in the new RM on that page).

I disagree with your claim that there is a consensus that is a commonly used name in English. Apart from the proposer, no one has claimed this – one supporter just said that is it more recognisable thant the current name, and one supporter argumented that English name is a standard for stadiums (which I refuted). No one has presented evidence for the statement that the suggested name is the most common or most understandable name. I suggested other names for the page that meet the supporter's request for the move, yet the page was moved to the name suggested by the original proposer. I think closing the discussion was premature and reasoning inaccurate.

I don't know if a possible move review is necessary (the new RM could serve its purpose), but one of the discussants is asking for a speedy close and asks me to deal with it through move review. FromCzech (talk) 09:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @FromCzech: and thanks for your query. Procedurally, talking to me first and then seeking a move review is the right approach. It's rarely appropriate to start a brand new RM immediately after the previous one closed with consensus, unless the first close was something like WP:NOGOODOPTIONS and editors want to explore in more depth between two possible names that weren't the original status quo. Otherwise, the correct course is to review or reopen the original discussion.

In this case the consensus appeared clear and I had closed it that way, there isn't really scope for a brand new RM, so approaching me rather than starting a new RM was the way forward. Since you've now done that, I am prepared to relist the discussion for a further week, since it does seem like there's more to dicuss and we want a settled consensus rather than something disputed. I'll reopen the discussion and close your new one now. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 10:53, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for quick response! FromCzech (talk) 11:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

car

106.222.202.189 (talk) 12:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for final decision on "Białystok Municipal Stadium" article title

Hi Amakuru, I kindly ask you to revisit the discussion on the title of Białystok Municipal Stadium. You previously moved the article under this name, recognizing it as the most appropriate and consistent with Wikipedia's conventions. However, after vacating that decision and relisting, I have provided additional reasoning addressing misconceptions and counterarguments raised by FromCzech. To summarize: "Stadion Miejski" is not a proper noun but a generic, descriptive term meaning "Municipal Stadium." This naming convention is used generically across Poland and does not denote uniqueness, as seen in other cities like Kraków or Poznań. Translating it into English ensures clarity for a global audience and aligns with established practices, as evidenced by stadiums like "Kazimierz Górski Stadium" and "Wrocław Stadium." Retaining the Polish term would obscure the meaning and set a problematic precedent for similar descriptive names. Examples from other countries further support translating generic terms for accessibility and consistency. The "Chorten Arena" sponsorship name remains secondary and is not a viable contender for the primary title. Given the weight of these arguments and prior support for the move, I hope you will reach a final decision to restore the English title, Białystok Municipal Stadium, maintaining the same rationale that initially justified your move. Thank you for considering this request. Paradygmaty (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine-Israel articles 5 arbitration case opened

You offered a statement in an arbitration enforcement referral. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 23:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC), which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 06:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Old Cities

Hi Amakuru, I added some curated summaries of the cities' histories to the two Old City DYKs. I quite enjoyed writing them. Did they address your comments adequately? Onceinawhile (talk) 10:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more careful

You made the same mistake twice here and here. Do not repeat that. Taivorist (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]