User talk:Un assiolo

This is Un assiolo's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Not only for great judgment and contributions; also for cleaning up my accidental mess, and doing so in a way that exemplifies WP:CIVILITY in the face of my repeated blunders. Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Special barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		For your skill in splitting pages.

JacktheBrown (talk) 20:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Event chart

Hello, Un assiolo,

I have reverted your closure of this AFD discussion. You can't be the nominator and close the AFD yourself with a Merge outcome. You could have done a Merge BEFORE the AFD was started. But once the AFD was opened, your only act could be to withdraw your nomination and you or another editor could close the discussion as a Speedy Keep (if there were no arguments to Delete). Then, a discussion about a possible Merge could occur on the article talk page. But to close with another outcome besides Keep is a conflict-of-interest as it by passes gathering consensus.

However, I see in your closure statement that you did choose to withdraw your nomination, so I've reclosed the AFD as a Speedy Keep. I know this might seem bureaucratic but unorthodox closures are vulnerable to being challenged at Wikipedia:Deletion review, and that is a process that I think is best avoided if possible! I hope you understand why we have to do this by-the-book. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Would it be possible to reopen the AfD then? Withdraw the withdrawal? And I'd then leave a comment suggesting merging. Given how obscure the article is, a discussion on the talk page is extremely unlikely to attract any attention. --Un assiolo (talk) 11:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Panzerotti#Talk:Zeppola#Requested move 16 August 2024

Hi, I would like to bring this discussion to your attention; what do you think about it? JacktheBrown (talk) 00:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JacktheBrown: Both of the requested moves are closed, not sure what you want me to do. "Panzerotto" would obviously be more correct, but evidently it's not the common name in English. I am not familiar with zeppole so I don't know what the natural-sounding title would be. --Un assiolo (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JacktheBrown: Apologies for reviving an ancient topic, but I Googled "panzerotti" and in nearly all photos there are multiple panzerotti, so it may be that the plural form is actually a better title. I am not really familiar with panzerotti either, I just assumed they are eaten one at a time, but if like fritule they are usually talked about in the plural, then the plural form might actually be a better title. In that case it would (if I had my way) be used as a plural, not as a singular with the plural "panzerottis". And I guess we disagree on whether the plural form is preferable, even when the food is always encountered in groups, as with fritule. I must say I found your opposition to the frittella/frittelle move peculiar. I chalked it up to you being unfamiliar with them, perhaps coming from a region where they are not eaten, but I later saw you were from Friuli Venezia Giulia, so you must surely be very familiar with them. Does it really not seem strange to you to talk about a single frittella/fritola/whatever you call it? Maybe it's different in Italy, but where I'm from I think everyone would agree that talking about a singular fritula is strange. I assumed, based on the fact that nearly all mentions of Italian frittelle/fritole I found online are in the plural, that the situation in Italy is the same, but maybe it's a cultural difference. --Un assiolo (talk) 18:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; consulting Il cucchiaio d'argento, it's in the plural ([1]). If you decide to create a new move request, I will support you. JacktheBrown (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JacktheBrown: There were two messages, it seems you missed the one about the sopressa/soppressata merge proposal. --Un assiolo (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to create a new move request on the frittella page? JacktheBrown (talk) 13:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JacktheBrown: I am hesitant to redo the exact same requested move after only a month. Thoughts on frittelle versus frìtołe/frìtole/fritole? See my comment at Talk:Frittella_(doughnut)#Requested_move_14_August_2024. --Un assiolo (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want, you can wait another month for the request. JacktheBrown (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Soppressata#Merger from Sopressa

Hi, since you're very good at merging pages would you take care of this? Thank you very much in any case. JacktheBrown (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JacktheBrown: If you look at the interlanguage links, sopressa links to it:Sopressa vicentina, so if you were using the fact that soppressata and sopressa have only one itwiki article as an argument in favour of merging, that's not actually true. Merging would leave it:Sopressa vicentina and its equivalents in various other languages without an enwiki equivalent. Technically, we can do whatever we want on enwiki, but I like to retain interlanguage links. It seems that the English, Italian, Spanish and Hebrew Wikipedias have articles for both. I encountered a similar situation when merging fritule et al., but the only overlap there was two articles on eswiki, which I somehow managed to merge without knowing any Spanish. These articles are much more complicated, so I can't replicate that. Thoughts on leaving the sopressa articles without an enwiki equivalent? (The extremely complicated interlanguage link situation is why I haven't merged the numerous articles covering different names for polenta; see Talk:Polenta.) --Un assiolo (talk) 17:14, 23 September 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) 00:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]