This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for your RM close at Talk:Haram (site). "Site", while not the perfect disambiguator, is the best available. Cheers. — AjaxSmack 16:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hi - would you please explain your reasoning behind finding consensus to move here? Thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 05:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
It seems self-evident; I don't know what needs to be explained. -- tariqabjotu 05:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, it seems to me that Binksternet and I put forward pretty strong policy-based arguments, supported with plenty of evidence, why the previous title was more appropriate. So I would very much appreciate your evaluation of the arguments presented and how it wound up being a consensus to move. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 23:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, more people disagreed with your position; their reasons seemed -- and still seem -- perfectly valid. If you feel I closed the move request incorrectly, there's a move review process. -- tariqabjotu 02:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I started a move review - see below for the link. Nothing personal! Dohn joe (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An editor has asked for a Move review of Santa María de Óvila. 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. Dohn joe (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
A kitten for you! Meow!
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
In case of ITN-generated Wikistress, look at the fluffiness of the kitten and all shall be well.
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thank you for assisting in moving the incubated page for The Avengers: Age of Ultron into the mainspace! It is much appreciated! Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Your block of me yesterday
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
To avoid further misunderstanding I am reposting here what I wrote yesterday in regards to your block.
The only thing that I did today was restore the NPOV tag which had been wrongly removed. Your block unfortunately is based on a false pretext.
What is "extremely obvious" to me is that my contributions have been constantly deleted wholesale by people who refuse to engage in good-faith discussion. What would be constructive is for you to state your objections in detail if you have any, rather than abuse your power to favor one side of the dispute.
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
hi there,
thank you for pointing out the move review discussion to me, I was not aware of it. Gryffindor (talk) 23:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
How do I fix something on ITN?
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You closed the royal baby thread at ITN while (I believe) there was still valid discussion underway. (Just started really.) We have been incredibly pedantic about the title of Princess Kate, but ignored the point that this kid is equally in line to be ruler of 16 Commonwealth realms, not just Britain. To the royalists in these places this will be very important, and most won't have had breakfast yet. I think the blurb needs to change to mention it.
Didn't want to appear confrontational and reopen the thread, but this should be discussed. How can it be done? Can maybe YOU re-open the thread please? HiLo48 (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
You should probably raise it at WP:ERRORS. Or if you have an alternative wording now that doesn't turn the blurb into a mouthful, I could make the change. -- tariqabjotu 23:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
This week's articles for improvement - 22 July 2013 to 28 July 2013
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, regarding your closure of the RM discussion at Talk:Ocean's Eleven, I wanted to state that I believe the discussion should have been closed with no consensus. The request was to fix something that was not broken and was aimed to remove disambiguation terms unnecessarily. Since we were not dealing with any vital topics here, I think the rule of thumb should be, when in doubt, disambiguate. There was sufficient doubt in the discussion. As I mentioned in the discussion with the principle of least astonishment, it makes sense for a reader to arrive at a fork in the road and proceed from there. This pair of articles is different from a pair in which one would be lowercase and the other would be title case. With a title case query, we generally assume a proper noun is being sought for. If a query is in lowercase, then readers will at least land at the article that has the underlying meaning for the proper noun even if they were not looking for it specifically. Here, I find the two films too interchangeable. The odds are roughly 50-50 to satisfy what the readers are looking for, the main distinction being the film's "official" title, which should not apply to article titles per WP:COMMONNAME. I showed results that there were inverse uses of the name, e.g., Ocean's Eleven in reference to the 1960 film. Nor did WP:2DAB apply because it requires one of the topics to be primary, which obviously was never the case with the previous setup. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 16:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Hah, and I like the font selection you have on this talk page. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 16:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
@Erik: I think your points were already clear during the move request, and I obviously didn't think they were strong enough to outweigh those points supporting the request. If you feel I closed the move request improperly, you are free to open a move review.
About the font, I absolutely hate sans-serif fonts. Therefore, I have a personal CSS file making all of Wikipedia appear in Georgia font and also forced everyone coming to my talk page to see the beauty of serifs. (The site-wide CSS file also has the added benefit of preventing me from accidentally posting while logged out, as it's extremely obvious when I'm not logged in.) -- tariqabjotu 09:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Invitation to join a discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Through this way, I inform there is a discussion about partially disambiguated titles, known as "PDABs". This subguide of WP:D was approved at VPP. I notify you about this because you has participated in at least one RM discussion in which PDAB is cited (in any form). You are welcome to give ideas about the future of this guideline at WT:D or to ignore this message. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!See terms and conditions. 05:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 24 July 2013
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
This is just a heads up that I redacted the word "clearly" in the Men's Right's movement log here. It was brought up in the ANI as the two admins involved had an objection to it as insulting and I didn't recall much opposition by you to their argument about how they perceived the word so I didn't feel it's be controversial to redact it.--v/r - TP 18:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't think there was any discussion at ANI about my comment on the log there; I believe it was only about my comment on User talk:Pudeo. The suggestion from Bwilkins that my words there were "insulting" was repeatedly and strongly rejected by myself and a few others. As for the wording on the Article probation page, I have no objection to removing the word "clearly" there (written in a slightly different context) if KC and Bwilkins don't want the constant reminder of their assumption of bad faith. However, if you do so, I'd prefer you just remove the word rather than replace it with the {{redacted}} template, which gives the impression that I said something far less innocuous than what I said and encourages people to find out what the "offending" remark was. -- tariqabjotu 21:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I'm sorry, I didn't read the user's talk page discussion and I wasn't aware. I've removed the template as well.--v/r - TP 00:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Template move
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I'm not sure why a null edit was needed? Maybe just a purge of the template? Also, the template is only semi-protected, so you should be able to edit it. -- tariqabjotu 09:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Oops, I must be color blind. I thought for sure that as a widely used template it was full protected. When a page that is transcluded is edited, those edits will not show up on the page it is transcluded onto until later, which can be forced with a null edit, which will not show up in the edit history, but will allow the changes to be seen. Apteva (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Some bubble tea for you!
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Talk:America RM. Even though I didn't !vote (was watching it but had no opinion) I would just like to say I thought you did well there, in the way it was handled I mean, I don't care about the result. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Some bubble tea for you!
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Talk:America RM. Even though I didn't !vote (was watching it but had no opinion) I would just like to say I thought you did well there, in the way it was handled I mean, I don't care about the result. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thank you for taking the time to close the discussion at Talk:America. Although you didn't reach the conclusion I would liked to have seen, that's just something comes with editing Wikipedia. You took the time to read all of that and give such a detailed close and I just wanted to let you know that it is appreciated, since closing those types of discussions that seems to be a rather undesirable job. Thanks. - SudoGhost 22:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Sorry about that revert, it was accidental, mobile editing is sometimes too slow, sometimes too quick! :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
@Status:WP:TWODABS says we don't need a disambiguation page when there are only two topics with the same name. That is understood to mean two topics covered by Wikipedia, not two topics in the entire universe. Right now that is just the anti-domestic violence protests and the Justin Timberlake song. The rest of the articles linked from the disambiguation page are not about subjects entitled "Take Back the Night". One could conceivably make the case that Highlander (season 3) is admissible since it has a section entitled "Take Back the Night". However, that's quite spurious (this isn't IMDB; do you really think people are going to be searching for that like that?), and even if it wasn't, that still can be covered by a hatnote. It is, without a doubt, unhelpful to funnel those looking for the article on the Timberlake song through a disambiguation page, as that's far and away most likely the alternate subject those landing on that page are interested in. -- tariqabjotu 00:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. What about the novels? I haven't looked into them, but they could have some notability. The fact remains that there are many Take Back the Nights and it would be a disservice to exclude them. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
@Status: They might have some notability, but they don't have articles now. I'm not suggesting anything novel here (no pun intended); disambiguation pages are supposed to list subjects that have articles on Wikipedia, not be a placeholder for potential articles. Right now, even if someone is looking for the novel by Erin Merryn, what help is the Erin Merryn article? If someone is looking for the Sweet Valley University novel, what use is List of Sweet Valley University novels? Neither of those articles say anything about those works besides the titles, so per WP:DABRELATED, these don't belong on a disambiguation page. Highlander (season 3) at least mentions something about a "Take Back the Night" episode, but that's pushing it and, in any event, a disambiguation page is not needed. -- tariqabjotu 02:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Considering how large of a term Take Back the Night is, I still don't agree. I, however, trust your judgement in the matter. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 02:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Move request for Aryan Migration to Assam
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Actually, when i created the article, with current Aryanization section as lede, i linked Aryan with Aryan, which linked as same till date, though lede was now changed by user Chaipau. Is this good enough reason to keep the name as Aryan, which too supported by Assam government. भास्कर् BhagawatiSpeak 05:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 July 2013
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Just to let you know (following on from the discussion, above), I've done the move review on this; it's here (sorry, I've no idea how to work the template). Xyl 54 (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
DC meetup & dinner on Saturday, August 24!
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, August 24 at 6:00 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!
For more information and to sign up, please see the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill[talk] 04:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
ITN thanks
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Main Page Barnstar
Thank you for keeping ITN moving along. It seems like 75% of the postings are by you, and your efforts are greatly appreciated. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 07 August 2013
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
Please see my reaction at Talk:On My Way (song). Moreover, I question the appropriateness of you being the person to close this request. The move request was initiated by citing the move of Jack (Breach song) → Jack (song) as precedent. That other move was closed less than two weeks ago by you, and it involved the same basic issue, so I don't think you're really an uninvolved party on this topic. The only change in the situation, relative to the prior move request that was closed three weeks ago as "Not moved", is the direct connection to your other action. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Gee. I didn't even remember closing that move request. That being said, I think closing a similar move request is pushing it in terms of calling someone "involved". -- tariqabjotu 18:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I certainly agree that closing a similar move request is not a problem. And I guess I believe it when you say you didn't remember that other closing. But this particular situation bugs me. We had a move request that was just closed as "not moved", followed immediately by another move request that raised no new issues other than citing two very-recent moves involving the same judgment call – i.e., whether a topic (and specifically a song title) needs to have a separate article devoted to it in order to be considered ambiguous – and you close that second move in favor of moving. Nothing new happened except your reading of the consensus. Personally, I think your interpretation is incorrect on that topic. Something can be very noteworthy and not be in a separate article. In such a situation, I think an article on another topic/song with the same name should be considered as needing disambiguation. I didn't comment in the second discussion because I had already expressed my view a few days earlier in the other discussion and nothing seemed to have changed. I was rather surprised to see a different outcome appear from the second discussion. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. I agree that "another move request occurred" is not a good enough reason to open a move request so soon. That being said, as it was opened, there were more participants [i.e. all of the supporters]. It is obvious there would be no basis for moving the article after the first move request, as no one [but the nominator] supported it. I think a reasonable thing to do is to ask the editor who closed the first move request (Jafeluv (talk·contribs)) to re-evaluate the move requests in light of the additional participation. If he still feels it shouldn't be moved, I'll move it back. Otherwise, I'll let it be. -- tariqabjotu 18:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
OK. But first let me see if I can convince you with a hypothetical case. Let's say someone in Kansas starts a punk-metal band and decides to name the band "Adam Lanza", and the Topeka Times writes an article about them (perhaps suggesting that their choice of name is in rather poor taste). Now someone decides to write a Wikipedia article about this band, citing the article in the Times as evidence of noteworthiness. There is no article on Wikipedia called "Adam Lanza". So should the article be put at "Adam Lanza", or at "Adam Lanza (band)"? On top of this, the "On My Way" issue involves the partial-parenthetical disambiguation WP:PDAB issue, which makes the case for "On My Way (song)" even weaker. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
That's not comparable. There is almost no situation in which On My Way (song) would redirect to the other articles, as they contain no information about those albums' respective songs entitled "On My Way" (except that they exist). The existence of any such redirect is a redirect "because we can", not a redirect because one is actually useful. I don't see how PDAB comes into play at all. If the Charlie Brown song didn't exist -- or if it didn't have an article -- there would be no need for a On My Way (song) page/redirect. The idea that we have to disambiguate against all articles that have the phrase "On My Way" is extreme and, as far as I know, never intended by any policy or guideline. -- tariqabjotu 21:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I see. Thank you for responding. I think that's a better explanation of your perspective than you previously provided. But if you look at that article about the Charlie Brown song, you'll see that there's basically nothing in it either. There are no sources that discuss the song. All the sources are just chart lists that happen to include this one in the list (or are dead links or the song's video on youtube or the artist's web site which doesn't seem to contain any obvious mention of the song). As far as I can see, the article meets Wikipedia deletion criteria, as it has no sources to establish notability. The only obvious difference between this song and the seven others with the same name now listed at On My Way is that some fan bothered to put together an article about this one. There is no obvious indication of a higher degree of notability. Not even the Topeka Times. As for the perceived supportive attitude on the requested move discussion, I count 3 opposed (76.65.128.222, In ictu oculi, Richhoncho) and 4 support (BDD, Tbhotch, 68.44.51.49, Aspects). The opposes often cited the previous expressions of opposition in the other request that had just closed two weeks earlier as "no move", which contained one additional oppose (mine). I know it's not a vote count, but that's hardly a tidal wave of support. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I also now notice that the article was only created very recently and that its creator is a user with a history of being repeatedly blocked and otherwise admonished for creating "unnecessary discography articles" with expressions of concern over "Notability of songs". Please see User talk:Greenock125/Archive 1. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Ashanti
Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
Hello again - I've got a question again on an RM close, this time of Ashanti. First, I'd like to say that I appreciate the closing statement. It's really helpful to know some of your thinking in making the close. That being said, I still question your finding of consensus to move. As far as I can tell, each option had roughly equal support. "Ashanti Douglas" was the first choice of the nom and bobrayner. "Ashanti (entertainer)" (the status quo) was the first choice of me and tbhotch. "Ashanti (singer)" was the first choice of in ictu and status. Article editor expressed a preference against "(entertainer)", but didn't say if they preferred the full name or "(singer)" (or something else). In ictu and the nom said they'd support the full name and "(singer)", respectively. That seems pretty darn even to me - and again, certainly not enough to rise to the level of consensus to move. As for "in light of the "entertainer" disambiguator being phased out except in situations where no better alternative exists" - what is the evidence for that? There are a few editors who dislike it, but see Talk:Chris Brown (American entertainer) for a recent RM that went the other way. I don't see evidence that it is being phased out at all. I'd love to hear your thoughts on both those issues. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
You do realize I closed the Chris Brown RM, right? I don't use my previous move request decisions as reason to make other decisions... and I don't believe I should. However, I felt that in the Chris Brown RM, there was enough evidence presented to demonstrate that "entertainer" was appropriate, and that Chris Brown's acting (or at least dancing) is notable enough in his career to make him not just a singer. I mean, I don't really agree with that -- I do think he's basically just a singer -- but the evidence was presented. In the Ashanti move request, the evidence was exceedingly poor. Perhaps part of the problem was that the move request was not directly about changing the disambiguator to "singer". However, I feel enough time was granted to the request to allow people to register their opinions and present evidence if there was any to bring. And there wasn't, apparently. -- tariqabjotu 21:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I did not realize you had closed the Chris Brown RM. But that just confuses me even more. In the Ashanti RM, I and others presented very similar evidence about Ashanti as with Brown, to show that she is referred to as an "entertainer" and that she is notable for more than just singing:
According to the article, the subject has a rather extensive filmography, making her more than just a "singer"
She was even named "Entertainer of the Year"
Historical Dictionary of African-American Television, p.26: "Among the entertainers appearing in the TV special were ... Ashanti."
The Economic Naturalist's Field Guide, ch.1: "To celebrate Amber Ridinger's thirteenth birthday, for example, her parents bought her a $27,000 Dolce & Gabbana gown and hired JaRule, Ashanti, and other popular entertainers to provide live music..."
Ebony, Apr. 2005, letter to editor:"[Ashanti] has proven to be a top-notch entertainer who has made her mark in the music and movie arenas."
Seems to me like Ashanti has a respectable filmography, including a lead role the tv drama Army Wives. Three full paragraphs in the current article are about her acting
Looking at IMDb, she has always been credited as "Ashanti" as acting
My main concern is that she is not just a singer
What am I missing? Dohn joe (talk) 18:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I do see a distinction. For example, here your sources [except the non-reliable letter to the editor] almost exclusively refer to Ashanti as an entertainer en masse with other people. On Chris Brown, I saw more evidence that the term was applied specifically to him. This is like finding sources that say "He met Daniel Day-Lewis and other celebrities" vs. "He met actor Daniel Day-Lewis"; in the former formulation, the use of the generic "celebrities" over the more precise "actor" is there to allow for celebrities who aren't actors -- even though Daniel Day-Lewis is almost exclusively an actor. Again, I think the importance of Chris Brown's dancing career is far overstated and that "entertainer" is a ridiculous catch-all, but evidence was at least provided there that sources call him an entertainer. It was a reasonable angle to take, even though not one I would take. That being said, if you don't see any distinction between the two scenarios, I am perfectly happy to move the Chris Brown article to Chris Brown (American singer). -- tariqabjotu 22:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I guess the real point in the comparison was that Ashanti's acting career is more extensive and notable than Chris Brown's dancing career, and so the "entertainer" tag is even more appropriate for her than for him. If it's a question of sources, I can find you a dozen right now that call her "singer and actress". That's the dual notability that most people in the RM acknowledged, and that makes "entertainer" a reasonable tag. I also have to say that I'm a little troubled by your statement that ""entertainer" is a ridiculous catch-all". It's fine to think that, and there are others who do as well, but do you really think that you should be closing RMs where "entertainer" is part of the equation? I appreciate that you closed Brown's RM against that position, but don't you think that there's a chance for that prejudice to sneak into your decision-making process? There's certainly at least the possibility of the appearance of it. Would you consider reverting the move and reopening the RM to let another closer without a strong feeling take a crack at it? Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
You misunderstood what I said; I was talking about in regards to Chris Brown. I could form a personal opinion about Ashanti (or a variety of other entertainers), but that's irrelevant. Still, it should be clear to you that I feel confident about my conclusion and that I have no intention of changing my mind. So, if you want to contest the move further, you should go to move review. -- tariqabjotu 00:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
You know, I thought about that after I finished my post, that the ridiculous claim might only apply to Brown, so, sorry for that. It still doesn't make any sense that Ashanti as entertainer would be less ridiculous than Brown, though. Would it have made a difference if I had posted the sources that call her both a singer and an actress? Dohn joe (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps. But it's water under the bridge now, as the move request is over. -- tariqabjotu 01:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I reverted C.D. Chivas USA move
Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
I'm not sure you followed the entire discussion, partially because you only closed the top half of it and did not include the bottom half. The Football project members were strongly opposed to the move as it affects several other MLS team articles and many other English-language football club articles. Feel free to revert my revert, but I would like to explain your decision at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football so that everyone at the project is onboard with it. No disrespect intended. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Tariq. I'm afraid to say I think it was a very bad move. Three supports, three opposes surely equals no consensus. I'd have understood if one side used policy whilst the other didn't, but there were quite clearly policies supporting both options. Any chance of a review/reopening? Number57 14:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks. On a different note, I recently requested that {{Palestinian elections}} be protected as a user has been edit warring by trying to remove links from the template. Unfortunately it has been protected on the version that violates BRD with the links removed, despite the protecting admin telling participants to follow the BRD guideline. I've brought up the issue on their talk page and they advised me to seek a second opinion from an uninvolved admin. Number57 20:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
At some point, the BRD cycle just becomes an edit war. It was an edit war by this point and with a relatively short three-day protection time, it's not a big deal. -- tariqabjotu 22:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Main page FA summary redirects
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thank you for bringing some common sense and simple decency to the whole unnecessary argument. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
