Open main menu

User talk:Amakuru

Archives: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17

Changing hook without discussionEdit

May I ask why you changed this hook without discussion or notifying anyone involved? Did you read the sources and the nomination page? -Zanhe (talk) 03:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Zanhe: the hook was inaccurate, and didn't reflect the article, as it said he was "knighted". I understand the point that the Tan Sri is equivalent to a knighthood, but that doesn't mean it's the same as one, or that it's correct to use the word knighted. I think the current wording works OK, but if you prefer to pull the hook to discuss it further we can do that. It can't go on the main page with terminology that isn't used in the article or the source though. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
The hook was accurate and did reflect the article (which mentions Tan Sri is a Malaysian knighthood), and it's been thoroughly discussed in the nomination process with multiple sources provided. The awarding of "Tan Sri" is frequently referred to as "knighting" in media, government, and academia. See this book and National Library of Singapore, in addition to the sources already presented in the article and nomination page. What's concerning to me is that you saw it fit to override consensus among multiple editors and use your admin privilege to change the hook in queue without discussion, and without bothering to notify anyone involved. -Zanhe (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Prep promotions to queueEdit

Hi, since we've been a little slow in loading preps, I wonder if you could keep two queues filled at all times and not promote a third? Queue 4 has some problems that need to be fixed, but it was promoted shortly after it was filled. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Yoninah, the only thing is we usually like to have the whole of tomorrow's main page loaded up during the day so that those looking out for errors have time to spot them and for them to be acted on before going live. During times when we're doing two sets a day, that may mean having three sets in the queue for some of the morning. Obviously if work is ongoing that would have to wait, but in this case Prep 4 had been marked as completed for several hours by the time I promoted it to the queue... Maybe we can discuss at the project what's optimal around this, obviously I appreciate you guys put in a lot of hard work into this and that there may need to be chopping and changing of preps.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I understand. It's just that it looks like we're down to Cwmhiraeth and myself building preps. If 97198 or SL93 could help out a bit more, we could have more preps ready for you. Yoninah (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I can help out more, but I really wish that DYK could somehow get more promoters. SL93 (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, SL93. We were doing okay when it was only one prep set a day. Looks like we might go back to that soon. Yoninah (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I could also try to muck in here and there when I have the time, but it wouldn't be guaranteed. Is it promoting approved nominations and inserting them into preps where there's a shortage, rather than reviewing the backlog of nominations?  — Amakuru (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I would say that the shortage is for promoting approved nominations rather than reviewing the backlog. Right now, there are mainly only two editors who move the approved nominations to the prep areas, but I did just help fill two sets. SL93 (talk) 03:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).

  Administrator changes

  DESiegelJake WartenbergRjanagTopbanana

  CheckUser changes


  Oversight changes

  CallaneccFoxHJ MitchellLFaraoneThere'sNoTime

  Technical news

  • Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
  • The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognitionEdit

Sir, I didn't get the ITN recognition for updating Kiran Nagarkar. I was advised by DBigXRay to come to you regarding this [1]. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot sir. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
@Fylindfotberserk: you're welcome, and apologies that it was late - actually it wasn't even that the browser failed to save, I just didn't notice that your name was listed as an updater of the article unfortunately. Cheers, and thanks for the good work.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you sir. I was feeling so embarrassed asking you. Thank you again. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Chester WilliamsEdit

 On 9 September 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Chester Williams, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

Stephen 02:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

An FYIEdit

It is my opinion that The Rambling Man's reform thread at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles was not created in good faith. He has had a history of following me around to cause trouble, and is using VA as an attempt to goad me into doing something he can take me to ANI or another noticeboard for. He is repeatedly making inaccurate or uninformed statements about the Vital Articles project, and he's collecting diffs of mine, which is something nobody who was acting in good faith would do. I'm sorry you've been sucked into his pissing contest. pbp 22:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

It is my opinion that (once again) I'm trying to bring the odd VA project to people's attention. The collection of diffs is simply to collate the personal attacks from PBP (once again). No pissing (I just went). The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
P.S. There's NO SUCH THING as a "history of following [PBP] around to cause trouble" so I suggest that is removed or we can go straight to ANI to sort it out once and for all. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Asking you to refrain from making inaccurate statements at VA is not a personal attack. Nothing I have done is a personal attack. The only thing that is a personal attack is you using VA to settle scores with me, which is what you're doing. If you weren't settling scores, you wouldn't be collecting diffs. I will not retract any of my edits, because they are true and not personal attacks. pbp 22:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm pretty clear now that you don't know what constitutes a personal attack, hence why my diffs are so important. Sorry Amakuru, you did your best I suppose! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Amakuru: I never received any sort of acknowledgement that you'd seen the concerns I had about TRM's behavior. pbp 16:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    @Purplebackpack89: apologies, I thought given the dialogue above that you and TRM had resolved the matter and did not require any intervention from me. I have no comment on your accusation that TRM followed you around and started the conversation at WT:VITAL for non-good-faith reasons. If you have concerns on those grounds, I'd have thought WP:ANI would be the place to go with details of the whole history and specific evidence. I don't really have any knowledge of the matter myself, and don't really have the time to go through it now.
    I can't really fault TRM for starting the discussion itself, though. I think it is a conversation that needs to be had, for the reasons I set out as part of the discussion - as much as it could be an enjoyable exercise for some editors to curate and categorise articles into varying levels of "vitality", and having such a list is useful where an arbitrary set of important articles is required, e.g. WP:The Core Challenge, the scope of the project should not go any further than that. In particular, the "vital" or otherwise status of an article should have no bearing on discussions raised elsewhere on Wikipedia regarding notability, naming, or any other policy matter. TRM is absolutely right that the small size of the editor pool in the Vital articles project make it unfit for such purposes.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    But the thing is, a lot of things on Wikipedia have problems with low participation. Some of those play for higher stakes than VA does. Why focus only on VA? pbp 17:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    I focus on all aspects of Wikipedia which may be exposed to our readers which may mislead them or give them false information. Hence my interest in parts of the main page (OTD, DYK, TFL, TFA, TFP), in the major article quality aspects (e.g. GAN, FLC, FAC) and areas which may inadvertently misrepresent Wikipedia's goals. No other areas of Wikipedia claim such a bombastic title of "vital", particularly when "vital" is selected by a sub-fractional number of users, usually the same ones. My behaviour here is simply to ensure our readers get the service they deserve when reading an encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
    And yet you've only made a few edits to VA ever, with all of them coming within a day or two of me making edits, usually a string of them. And many of your comments about VA indicate a lack of understand of the project; some are flat-out inaccurate. I'm sorry, I just can't take you seriously about VA reform; it should start with somebody who has a better understanding of the project and less of a history of bullying and threatening me. pbp 15:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
    Perhaps because you're "in it" you can't see how intractable it is to contribute to it. And any lack of understanding of a project which self-declares as "vital" is probably down to the fault of the project given my experience here. And finally, don't forget that I don't care if you take me seriously or not. That doesn't make any difference at all. As for your final throwaway, I won't even dignify it, other than to advise you against continuing to cast aspersions unless you are prepared to go to WP:ANI. Because take this as your "final thought", if you continue to cast aspersions, I'll see you there. Time for an IBAN I think. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:42, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
    Advice not taken; why would I take advice about aspersions from a guy who's under sanction essentially for casting them about anybody and everybody? Also, IBANs are two-way, buddy. Were we to be I-banned, you'd be forbidden from responding directly to any comment I make at VA or anywhere else, and also forbidden from re-factoring my comments or edits anywhere. pbp 15:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
    Oh, it wasn't advice, it was fact. If you can't stump up your evidence to support your aspersions, we'll request them via ANI. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
    Alright guys, leaving your differences aside for a moment, are there any actual tangible issues concerning VA that require us to act or make a decision? As I've said above, I'm personally fine with VA existing within its own little realm, as a project page, and for use in situations where people actively opt in to it, e.g. WP:The Core Challenge. I also think it would be concerning, if the vital status of an article were used in other debates elsewhere to prove a point. I'm not sure if there is any suggestion the latter has occurred though. A hatnote on the WP:VA page explaining that it may not represent fully vetted community consensus, similar to what we put at the top of a WP:ESSAY page, as TRM suggested, would probably be useful but I wouldn't insist on that if there's a lot of resistance.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
    Indeed, VA is a great mini-project for those handful involved in it, but it is essential that it is somehow marked that it's not the Wikipedia community that deems the articles being selected and deselected there almost daily as being "vital" in any community-agreed sense. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
    I think that kind of a hatnote is unnecessary. Comparing VA to an essay seems off; essays generally serve different purposes than VA does. A VA designation isn't like protection; it doesn't restrict the editing of a designated article (and, of course, protection isn't enacted by the kind of community consensus you demand). And I'm not buying this idea that VA somehow doesn't represent "fully vetted community consensus". It represents more community consensus than a rating from any other WikiProject does (most assessments are conducted by single editors; I myself have re-assessed hundreds of articles) and it usually represents more of a community consensus than an article does. Remember, you need at least five editors to agree; very few things require the agreement of that many editors. Do you, like, want an RfC for every change to the list? That's unnecessary and unworkable. And if we put the whole list to a big vote we'd have people voting no even though they liked 90% of the list but disapproved of a small portion. Furthermore, I think people are too hung-up on the use of the word "vital"; I'm not buying into this idea that somehow we have to play by stricter rules just because we use the word "vital". Finally, the assertion that articles are added or removed "almost daily" is yet another TRM misunderstanding of the VA project he's trying to change without really understanding. If you were to compare the Lv 3 or Lv 4 list now from what it was a year ago, you'd find that it was relatively stable. pbp 17:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
    Keep up with the accusations, noted. As for your opinion on an outside view of VA: you're on your own. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
    I will not back away from my observation that you've made inaccurate statements about VA. If you don't like it, then you shouldn't have made inaccurate statements. pbp 17:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
    You're on your own. Let me know when you will provide the information to back up your WP:ASPERSIONS or we can continue this at ANI. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
    I already explained why you were inaccurate: you claimed that articles are promoted and demoted at VA on an "almost daily" basis; I countered by saying that VA 3 and VA4 have been relatively stable in the past year. If you want a diff, here’s one. And you're clearly not going to take me to ANI, or else you'd have done it days ago. You know full well that if this goes to ANI, you're the one getting sanctioned. pbp 17:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
    Your diff is in no way a useful counter-claim to what I have said. But it's immaterial, as you're on your own there. But what is 100% fact is that you have cast aspersions, in numerous locations, at numerous user talk pages, you have accused me of following you after pinging me, and you have made numerous personal attacks in the past few days. It is now down to you to provide me with diffs backing your aspersions, or I will ask for them at ANI, along with providing the community with the multiple personal attacks you have levelled at me and the aspersions you have cast. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
    Firstly you started critical discussion about VA project (ok, maybe you just"tried" understand what VA is, okey... but where later was"good faith"?), secondly you make edit with description "trying to help" but finally you wrote your honest viewpoint and engaging here. If you had good faith and you were trying to help (I try belive, I hope you stil have so) why among many options to productive solutions you chosed jut a sentence "daring to even question anything here is not worth the resulting indignation.", why you did not suggested something other? You could say that for example vital article project can revolve around automating classification of article importance which would be later very useful for Small Wiki Monitoring Team or something other like WP:Core Challenge? Level 3 and 4 are stabile, these ones were edited by multiple editors for years what was even agreed here by Casliber, and nowhere is wroten: vital articles is consensus of "whole" community of the Wikipedia becaue of nothing is consensus of "whole" community of Wikipedia one the Wikipedia. If we are going to make more general discussions what else can improve project VA I belive we should make discussions about another project on Wikimedia (Nettrom kept me relevant message here and FWIHW he is now alone in that project on Wikimedia because of second one constributor now is not active in Wikimedia) or about that WP Challenge. Cheers for all (with good faith). Dawid2009 (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, the problems started when editors started quoting "vitality level" as some kind of pass at ITN, that was problematic. I'm not sure why everyone is fixated with levels 3 and 4 "vital articles", I don't believe I have ever referred to those, whether those are somehow considered "stable" or not is not really relevant. They have still been picked by a microscopic fraction of a percentage of users and self-declared as "vital" to the project (and by inference, to our readers). It has since become obvious that there is no obvious disclaimer that makes this clear to anyone, let alone our readers. I think your questions about the hostility with which my comments at the project have generally been received speak for themselves. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
    TRM, we'd take your reforms more seriously if you didn't ground them in hostily and exaggeration. pbp 20:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
    No, it's just you alone here complaining about me, so "we'd take your reforms"?? Nope, you're on your own. As soon as you've backed up your WP:ASPERSIONS with the required diffs where I "bullied" and "threatened" you here, we can move on. In the meantime, I'm not interested in anything you have to say. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, well getting back on track - the core topics seem to have been created by the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team and its earlier incarnations for an offline version of wikipedia. I have no idea if these are still active. For some reason the core topics and vital articles were seen as separate. I will try and ask Jaranda/Secret who I can get in touch with readily. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the core bios project is dead and has been for several years. I'll poke around and help you out on who to talk to about having core bios hosted by the VA project from hereon out. Since V 1.0, technology has moved in a direction to render a successor project to V 1.0 obsolete. When V 1.0 was done, people were still using CDs and not really using smartphones. Now, most people have smartphones, but few have devices that can take a CD. pbp 20:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
The CD to smart phone ratio is probably still high in some parts of the world, from my experience, although it is certainly reducing everywhere. I think the bigger problem for v1.0 was the sheer enormity of the task, insufficient volunteers, the inherent problems with trying to snapshot what is actually a living, breathing, encyclopedia that constantly changes, and a general lack of clarity about what the project hoped to achieve. VA doesn't suffer from as many of these issues, as it is not about sandboxing, and it's pretty much acknowledged that it has no greater purpose than to collate and list the entries. Presumably that makes it easier to work on. As an aside, the necessity of having five votes for changes can be a hindrance at times as well. Sometimes fairly obvious changes fail because the quorum isn't achieved, and that's not because the suggestions don't have consensus, it's just that the VA project doesn't have huge numbers of editors around.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:54, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I have asked on that page whether it can be marked as 'inactive' or 'historical' was it superceded by "wikipedia in a box"? which I can't find now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
@Casliber: Is this Wikipedia-in-a-box? pbp 21:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes - this was it. I think it did happen...pinging @Doc James:.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
So the WP 1.0 was an effort to create a small subset of the core content of Wikipedia. As memory because less and less expensive, this becomes less important for some offline efforts.
We now have Internet-in-a-Box which ships with a 128 Gb microSD card (and can fit all of EN WP)
These are however separate projects. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


Hi. Did you realize that you already cast a !vote at the Talk:Osroene RM? Just a heads up. Station1 (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Station1: oh wow, I'd totally forgotten,and didn't notice it when I was reading the discussion... At least I voted the same way both times! That could be a case of great minds think alike; Or else fools seldom differ   Thanks for the heads up, anyway, I've pulled the second !vote  — Amakuru (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

RM closureEdit

Hello Amakuru. The move request on Peć, where you have participated, has been open for more than a month and now the discussion has become rather pointless. Where can I request closure by an uninvolved admin? Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

new IPEdit

Hello, it's Nahom Andreescu-Tesfaye. you are the admin I trust the most, so I will let you know my new IP, I was User: now i am user:

This change is due to me having frequent wifi issues caused by my geographic location, as I am far away from any cities, the nearest major city is a 6 hour drive away from me by road. I don't remember who blocked the 38 IP but please clear it, and when my IP changes I will let you know. I get the reason of the block hence why I am letting you know. You may block this IP until it changes again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Do you feelEdit

that your write-up of Paul Kagame really fits NPOV? WBGconverse 05:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I would say so. Granted it's a controversial topic, and opinions on the matter tend to be very polarised, but I've tried where possible to just stick to the facts rather than make it opinionated. There's plenty of mention of criticism of PK, which has come from various quarters, but that's balanced against other sources which spin his achievements more positively. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

My pleasureEdit

It's a pleasure to meet you Amakuru. A very distinctive user name, and impressive. If my research is correct, it can also refer to Information? (I researched Google before taking the much more sensible route of just reading your user page) I do tend to take the long way around the barn at times. Getting ALL Rwanda articles up to B class is a rather large goal, but at least it gives you plenty of work to do. Either way, it is a pleasure, and I wish you the best. Cheers. — Ched (talk) 11:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ched: he he, yes... I'll probably have to abandom that lofty goal. And it doesn't help that I've diverted on to writing about other topics, such as the History of Coventry City F.C. and King's Cross Thameslink railway station this year. I'm doing OK on the core ones, though - Rwandan Civil War, Rwanda and Paul Kagame all FAs now. Will keep plodding away at those over the years as time permits! I believe you're right - Amakuru can mean information too. It's usually the first of a long list of greetings which people run through when meeting each other, before they get on to any other topics. Others include amashyo (may you have lots of cows), and various wishes for Jesus to watch over you etc.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Removing "The" from song and album disambiguatorsEdit

Did you miss the discussion? Here is the latest; nobody has volunteered to do a new RFC to try to overturn the consensus. In any case, I think it's wrong to call such moves "undiscussed". Dicklyon (talk) 23:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: It's been pointed out by several editors, both after the fact and at the ANI you mention, that there was °no consensus for the change. The discussion was poorly attended and the close looked like a WP:SUPERVOTE, ignoring reasons to maintain the status quo. To use that to start ramming through large numbers of moves with no listings at WP:RM is not acceptable. Of course, it doesn't mean there's any reason for you to be dragged to ANI, but equally you should stop making the mass moves unless a clear consensus is established.  — Amakuru (talk) 02:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
The consensus at the AN discussion appeared to be that moving ahead was OK, and that if someone objected they should start a new RFC. There's no reason to discuss this at individual article RMs. And your choice of words "ramming through" seems to demean the good intention of editors working toward the consensus style. Dicklyon (talk) 02:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


Hi there - I realized I forgot to ping you in my response to your !vote at Talk:Sectionals#Requested_move_7_September_2019. I'm sure you saw it and just didn't respond, but just in case, I wanted to draw your attention to the response. Thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Dohn joe: good afternoon/evening and thanks for the message and no, in fact I hadn't seen your response to my point. I have added a general comment in reply to the replies on my !vote. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Move proposal: African independence movementsEdit

Hi - you made a comment on the move I proposed at Talk:African independence movements - if you have not been following further discussion there, I'm asking if you would have a second look. Thanks, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Small requestEdit

Hi Amakuru, could you unblock my old account (Ansh666 (talk · contribs)), please? I feel like the self-block has served its purpose, and I'd like to have the option to return to it if I wish to. Thanks! ansh.666 18:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ansh.666: @Ansh666:   Done with pleasure. If you want the account to have any user rights, let me know.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! I think extended-confirmed is the only one I'd need back. ansh.666 21:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Great, I've added that. Cheers, and a happy weekend to you  — Amakuru (talk) 22:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 29Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited University of East Anglia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page University Grants Commission (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


Hi, I noticed that you changed "euro" in Queue 2. It should probably also be changed in the caption. I'd recommend using the title: Euro-Skulptur. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 18:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mandarax: thanks for the heads-up. I'm not seeing evidence that Euro-Skulptur is a commonly used name in English though, that's just the descriptive title in German. sources just seem to call it the euro sign sculpture.[2] So I've updated that caption so it matches the hook. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

AfroCine: Join the Months of African Cinema this October!Edit


After a successful first iteration of the “Months of African Cinema” last year, we are happy to announce that it will be happening again this year, starting from October 1! In the 2018 edition of the contest, about 600 Wikipedia articles were created in at least 8 languages. There were also contributions to Wikidata and Wikimedia commons, which brought the total number of wikimedia pages created during the contest to over 1,000.

The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which have been dedicated to creating and improving content that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora. Join us in this global edit-a-thon, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section.

On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing participants in the following manner:

  • Overall winner (1st, 2nd, 3rd places)
  • Diversity winner
  • Gender-gap fillers
For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2019Edit

Hook checkingEdit

Fine. Consider it closed then. I think we're just about done here, anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello dude, just seeing some of the commentary over at the place whose name I cannot speak. A quick summary from me on checks I perform (to get it from the two hours to something like 15 minutes):

  1. Check the hook is written in grammatically correct English and matches words and ENGVAR used in the article.
  2. Check the article is okay, that's a multi-step process:
    1. Check that there are no unreferenced claims in general, i.e. look for paras or sentences without refs.
    2. Check that the article is written in grammatically correct English (spot check, but especially around the hook region).
    3. Check that the hook is real.
    4. Check that the reference verifying the hook is live.
    5. (Check for MOS – I do this because I can, I'm good at it and I want the stuff on the main page to be decent, which it often isn't – this is optional...!)
    6. Check for basic DYK fails (bare URLs, stub templates, maintenance tags [that includes [citation needed] by the way]).

That's it. That I can find at least two hooks per day to complain about with such simple checks is disappointing. Anyone claiming they don't have time to do the above shouldn't be promoting sets to the Main Page of WIKIPEDIA for its 16–20 million views PER DAY!!!. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

To answer this point, thanks for the tips - all commonsense stuff of course, but good to have in black and white and I'll run through this checklist next time I'm doing the queues, so it will come in useful. And I take your point about being careful and taking the time to prepare things properly for the readers, although in my defence I usually only do the hooks when it gets to 12 hours before go-live, and nobody's done them yet (this was much more of an issue a few months ago, before Valereee was promoted). And as I said in the other place, I do check them over for basic errors first. The alternative would be to do nothing, but then rather than the previous day's hook set remaining in place, which would be acceptable if undesirable, everyone instead gets into a panic and the prep set is promoted with virtually no checking at all, at a moment's notice, which isn't ideal at all. It's annoying that even after four levels of checking (nominator, reviewer, promoter, admin) you're still seeing issues, but it can't be only me to blame because I'm not even involved most days... Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
And the band hook, "it was authorized to have 37..." would probably work. I now see it, but it's taken seven double-takes. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Quite so. It was the same with me, I stared at it earlier this afternoon, trying to see what I'd missed, but failed. That suggestion sounds sensible anyway. The statement seems to be crying out for a [by whom?] tag, but maybe that's obvious to people who move in military circles. I will come back to your other point after I've had my dinner.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
No rush dude. It's just what I do. And as you know, I'm brilliant at it. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Of course. And modest too.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

And I'm sorry about Maile66's objectionable behaviour, for instance here. They need to take some time out to think hard, really hard about their despicable behaviour. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

It appears that I may have to bring Maile66's behaviour to Arbcom as they clearly know not what they do or say. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Re "the place whose name I cannot speak"; it's not just the name, it's the process, and the TBAN extends to this page. The conversation you're having here shouldn't be happening here, it should be happening at your errors page. Anyone who felt like it could start another AE dramafest over this. Amakuru, you know this too; you could have moved the locus of the conversation just as easily. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oh well fuck it then. Just apply the block. Three months. This is fucking absurd. I'm here to help those working with the process, help the main page etc. Utter bullshit. Thanks Vanamonde for not just kneejerking into a block but I'm sick of this now. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm not going to block you. I'm not even going to drag you to AE. I'm just asking you to have the damn conversation in a place where no one has an excuse to create drama over it. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Because it's HELPFUL and POSITIVE and PRO-ENCYCLOPEDIA and really nothing to do with the Arbcom ruling, right? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:28, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 is misrepresenting. You are fully entitled to help me help Wikipedia in my own words. I'm shocked and dismayed that he would make such a false claim in his position. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Well maybe it is, maybe it isn't. It hardly matters though, as in most cases the issue can be discussed without needing to copy across your exact wording (which would be a breach of WP:COPYWITHIN if I did it without attribution!) And I only ever raise issues that I agree with at WT:DYK anyway. In the rare cases where I don't agree with one of your points, I obviously wouldn't raise it over there, so there's no basis for accusing me of proxying really. And if they do'nt want me to mention your name then I don't have to.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
It's pretty clear that Vanamonde's warning was without substance, with regard to "proxying", utter bullshit in fact. It's not about mentioning my name, but if it is, so much more pathetic. I suppose 14 years of trying to keep the main page free of horse shit isn't enough of a barnstar to convince some people. Fuck 'em. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh FFS, Amakuru, where have I accused you of proxying? I have described a hypothetical; if you've never done something like that, well and good. TRM yelling at me is nothing new; but if you think I've accused you of something I haven't, I think I can expect you to raise it on my talk page (as I did on yours) so we can talk about it like adults. Why you continually avoid giving me direct replies, I cannot fathom. (Added post-EC): I haven't given Amakuru a "warning" either; all I did was to explain the policy about proxying. I stand by that explanation. You have issues with that, you know where to go. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:01, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, you made up the proxying thing. It's bollocks. Hopefully at some point we'll all agree that we're all working for the benefit of our readers. Right now, there are a few here who clearly are missing that message. I think it's time for you Vanamonde to get a reality check here. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
If it's bollocks, why don't you ask Amakuru to copy your posts to WT:DYK without any accompanying commentary from him? Regardless: you're the one who needs a reality check. You have the simplest possible TBAN; you're allowed to talk about the DYK process on exactly one page, User:The Rambling Man/Errors. Three times, in the last few months, you've violated that; given your continual insistence on your own infallibility, forgetfulness is no longer an excuse. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:09, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: (edit conflict) OK, here's a direct reply then. If I appeared evasive to you, it's only because I don't particularly want to be involved in this drama and I saw no reason to get involved in the ongoing discussion at your own talk page, but thought it polite to answer direct points made here on my talk. I get that you and TRM don't get along, that's very unfortunate, but personally I like and respect both of you and I have no wish to get into any disputes. On the proxying issue, your exact words were: "If Amakuru agrees with your assessment of the issue, he should raise it as something that concerns him. If he doesn't, he could ask for a second opinion at WT:DYK; but in either case, simply saying "TRM spotted this, please do something about it" without making it clear where he stands on the matter isn't helpful, because it is proxying, and because we can't engage you in conversation at WT:DYK." which I interpreted as a suggestion that the thread I started at WT:DYK, regarding the Military Band, was proxying in violation of TRM's topic ban. But if that wasn't what you meant, then all well and good. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
@Amakuru: Okay, fair enough. To be clear, I do not think that particular thread was proxying, nor, to the best of my knowledge, have you ever violated that policy. Since the topic of proxying was brought up, I figured I should clarify; I certainly did not anticipate that leading to the subsequent shouting match. You are, of course, not obliged to get involved with unpleasantness that doesn't directly concern you. I do appreciate the work you put into the main page: thank you for that. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 21:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
(ec) Sure and I appreciate your patience when all I've done is report problems with the main page. Your accusations however have now transcended that, your claims that someone repeating my errors to be a violation of PROXY. Stop changing the subject. (My insistence of my infallibility is fucking sarcasm, obviously, get a grip). If you actually believe that Amakuru's repeats of my error reports to be a violation of the PROXY policy, please start an Arbcom enforcement case. I think that's utter horseshit, but if you continue to level it at me and others who help make the main page a better place, we need to resolve it post-haste. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that will be necessary. We've identified a way forward - I'll clone and own the issues if I need to discuss them at WT:DYK - and Vanamonde has already indicated that they haven't seen any proxying going on today, and they aren't going to pursue the matter through a block or AE thread, so there's no need for any further rhetoric. Let's move on from this and build an encyclopaedia, or some other shit like that.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Amakuru. I don't appreciate the threats from Vanamonde93 relating to "proxying", especially when they are completely out of process. As you know, I have been working on building the encyclopdia since 2005, as I'm sure Vanamonde has been doing as well. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Right, now the noise has subsided, we can get on the normal work here. Per Vanamonde's useful warning, I'll have to keep my advice on how to stop the main page being a turgid pile of shit to my errors page, so my mistake for trying to get a sensible checklist out there into the mainstream. Thank goodness for wikilawyering. Per the sheer absurdity of it all, if you have any thoughts on the checklist above, please let me know via WP:TRM (and ping me, because leaving messages there doesn't notify me!). Thanks again for actually being one of those admins who gives a shit rather than one of those admins who just gives shit. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Cheers mate, will do.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


I did fix errors, not just tag them. Nobody cares that I fixed them, but I did. There's certainly no glory or prestige in stopping errors getting onto the front page, still less in questioning if FA review works properly. Treads on too many toes. Too many shiny badges at risk. DuncanHill (talk) 13:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: I totally agree with you, and thanks for fixing those that you did fix. You are quite right to tag things in the article if you can't easily fix them on the spot. The only point I was making is that it doesn't really help to get angry with other editors, even if you think they've acted out of order. Let the issues speak for themselves. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Then I'll let this speak for itself. DuncanHill (talk) 13:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, DuncanHill, for fixing my ""crap" article, which I spent well over £400 and the best part of 6 months of my life on. I am indebted to you. But I vehemently disagree with your use of tags on a FA. I don't give a monkey's toss about what is or isn't accepted on Wikipedia in terms of tagging. Rather than worry about respecting guidelines, have some respect for those who wrote the bloody article instead. Some advice: What you do is if you see something that needs fixing, then you fix it. If you can't fix it, ask on the talk page for someone else to fix it and set out why you couldn't fix it in the first place. If it still can't be fixed, then delete it. It's simple. A tag can lay undiscovered for months, if not years, and solves absolutely nothing in solving issues or fixing clarifications. The fact you and I are (probably) thousands of miles apart, sitting behind keyboards, doesn't mean we can't work together to find a suitable remedy. A tag is not a suitable remedy. It is a piece of coding made up for lazy people who want to be seen to be doing something, but are actually not doing very much at all. CassiantoTalk 16:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
No need to thank me for fixing the errors about the date of the tv play, or the reference for it. No need either to thank me for undoing your re-insertion of those errors. No need to thank me for raising it on the talk page - just try not to claim I didn't. If you object to maintenance tags then either get things right or propose their deprecation in an appropriate forum. Don't attack editors who use them legitimately. DuncanHill (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

  Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

  Technical news

  • As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.



  • The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Milky WayEdit

In case Template:POTD/2019-10-05 has already been copied for the home page, please note the correction I've just made to it. If we were literally on the rim of the galaxy, it would not appear as a complete band all the way around the sky. The reason it does is that we are within the galaxy. It is true that we are near the outer rim, but this is irrelevant to the point. -- (talk) 07:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 6Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of Coventry City F.C., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Garry Thompson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Relevant RMEdit

Hi Amakuru, thanks for your recent comment on the RM at Talk:Les Échos (France). A similar RM is currently taking place at Talk:Les Échos (Mali), which might be of your interest. With best regards, Lordtobi () 14:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Lordtobi: thanks for the message. I had already contributed over there, although I haven't looked in detail at the font issue as I did with the French one. I assume the issues are the same though. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Amakuru, this probably slipped by my eyelids, thanks for the heads-up! Lordtobi () 15:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation RM discussionEdit

Since you participated in this discussion about disambiguation pages just shy of two months ago, would you be willing to voice your thoughts on this move discussion that deals with the same issue? I believe you would have something to say about it. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Naming conventionsEdit

Please take a look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics/Archive_51#Changing_the_standard_DAB, which spun off from other discussions. A few different lengthy community-wide discussions took place in 2017, where the use of (comics) as a DAB for comics characters was disputed and several users claimed that there was an ownership conspiracy at WP:COMICS because it implies that the comic book version of the character takes precedence over all other versions and it's easy to confuse (comics) with a publication. After several drawn out discussions (and a lot of drama in between), a new consensus emerged and the naming conventions were updated.

This didn't just happen overnight, it was community-wide and thoroughly discussed (and not just with local WikiProject members). DarkKnight2149 00:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

cycle through?Edit

thank you for updating the hidden notice, but you left a name that is already on the Main page, while dropping one that is not, - intentionally so? Please watch the article, I'm out today, and controversies are high, see article and talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: - Handke was actually up as the picture from 03:49 to 07:21 today, which is a fairly short time admittedly but he has had a bit of an outing. Stephen swapped him for Tokarczuk. I haven't done the maths as to how long would be a good time to leave each one up, but I was thinking around 6 hours each at least - they might stat dropping off soon so we want to make sure we get through them all, and I've nominated Eliud Kipchoge this morning too who will eventually perhaps warrant a pic if there's consensus for him to be posted. Not aware of the controversy around Handke, but will take a look through the day in case anything kicks off! Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:23, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
If I missed it, everybody missed it. Europe was asleep then, perfect timing ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:26, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
She is prettier, anyway ;) - will not change my talk then, as there will not be an archive of the Main page with his image. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: He he, well she is twenty years younger, so maybe not too surprising?! Maybe we can give him another few hours later this afternoon before then moving to Ahmed overnight, and then Leonov tomorrow? Not sure if there's consensus for any of this, but it seems to make sense to me...  — Amakuru (talk) 10:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

The reports of my death are greatly exaggeratedEdit

Former?! –xenotalk 07:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Xeno: Ah, my mistake, apologies, will fix! I had noticed your desysop request in passing, but hadn't noticed that didn't include decratting. I don't think I've seen a non-admin crat before, does they mean your control panel allows you to make someone an admin, but doesn't allow you make them a rollbacker or page mover?  — Amakuru (talk) 07:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
No worries, I think I’m the first, though Useight did contribute as a bureaucrat for an extended period of time exclusively from their alternate account. Re permission screen: Yes, and it doesn’t let me revoke those permissions either so I’ve had to be creative. –xenotalk 07:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Eliud KipchogeEdit

 On 12 October 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Eliud Kipchoge, 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.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you regarding Did You Know and Bissinger Wool PulleryEdit

Thank you for your kind attention to the article about the wool pullery. I appreciate you notifying me. This is the first article I've worked on that has been so recognized. Hu Nhu (talk) 03:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

War and Peace?Edit

re this one: At least it should keep them all out of everyone's hair for a couple days. :-) — Ched (talk) 23:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Ched    — Amakuru (talk) 06:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:S.N.EntertainmentEdit


A tag has been placed on your user page, User talk:S.N.Entertainment, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be advertising which only promotes or publicises someone or something. Promotional editing of any kind is not permitted, whether it be promotion of a person, company, product, group, service, belief, or anything else. This is a violation of our policies regarding acceptable use of user pages — user pages are intended for active editors of Wikipedia to communicate with one another as part of the process of creating encyclopedic content, and should not be mistaken for free webhosting resources or advertising space. Please read the guidelines on spam, the guidelines on user pages, and, especially, our FAQ for Organizations.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. David J Johnson (talk) 09:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Page movesEdit

Apologies. I was trying to help at WP:RM and was well-intentioned. --Chelston-temp-1 (talk) 11:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Move review for MarinerEdit

An editor has asked for a Move review of Mariner. 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. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


Hi Amakuru. I just realised I reverted your addition of a comma on T:ITN! If there is a comma, then I guess there should also be one after the other book. But I'm not sure that either is needed, actually — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@MSGJ: a comma is needed at the end of "Girl, Woman, Other," because "woman" and "other" form appositives which must be offset with a closing comma before the normal sentence continues. This is similar to the "Chattanooga, Oklahoma" example mentioned at MOS:COMMA. The Margaret Atwood title contains no commas so does not need an offsetting comma. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't think they are appositives, it's just the title of the book. I also notice that BorgQueen also removed this comma earlier today. However I note the example with Chattanooga, Oklahoma,, so I'm not 100% sure. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't think the fact that it's a title means that suddenly normal grammar rules don't apply. Currently it reads as if there are three clauses separated by commas: "Girl", "Woman", and "Other by Bernardine Evaristo". I will ask at WT:MOS though, to see if any experts are around to fill us in!  — Amakuru (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

What if those commas were some other punctuation, like dashes? I don't think you would be adding an extra comma to this:

If you agree that the blurb above looks okay, then that suggests those internal commas are not part of the grammer of the sentence. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

  • True, but dashes don't have the same different rules as commas. If, hypothetically, we were to use a dash for the city, state, combination then it would be different:
    • I went to Chattanooga, Oklahoma.
    • I went to Chattanooga–Oklahoma.
    • I went to Chattanooga, Oklahoma, with my friends.
    • I went to Chattanooga–Oklahoma with my friends.
    @MSGJ: Item three needs an offsetting comma but item four doesn't need an offsetting dash. Anyway, given that it's a title, you may be correct. For me it would seem to come down to whether the title is regarded as an entity outside of the usual grammar of the sentence, or if it's part of the running text. I'll see what people say over at WT:MOS. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 18:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
    It needs a comma, if only to make it stop looking so fucking stupid! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
    Especially following "gasoline, tobacco, and online phone..."! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

District v suburbEdit

There is Category:Wikipedia categories named after districts of London and I removed the districts of England category before realizing that its also for the London boroughs. Do you think that we should rename it to Category:Wikipedia categories named after areas of London and move the boroughs back into the districts category? There is also a discussion at Commons:Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/10/Category:Districts in the United Kingdom regarding the issue of districts v suburbs. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: I'm not too sure about what should happen here. What is the purpose of the "Wikipedia categories named after..." categories anyway? Presumably it was intended to include any article mentioning one of the areas of London in its name, which would include the various London boroughs, since they generally are named after particular suburbs or localities. This does rather support the notion that the "district" terminology is confusing, though, particularly as the category you mention has been included in the super-category of Wikipedia categories named after districts of England, which really does reference the local government districts. I would support the move you suggest, as part of deprecating the use of "district" for areas of London altogether. There are a lot of articles which still use the term, incidentally. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
The "Wikipedia categories named after..." categories are for categories only (as opposed to the articles) named after the main article. For example Category:Notting Hill is a Wikipedia category that is named after the Notting Hill article. The List of areas of London article (which Areas of London redirects to) doesn't include boroughs and there's a hatnote to List of London boroughs. The category could probably be speedily renamed because of the main article and Category:Areas of London but because the category also currently contains boroughs it should probably go through CFD which I'll start shortly. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Now at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 October 22#Category:Wikipedia categories named after districts of London. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Just out of interest (not actually proposing this) but do you think that London boroughs that aren't ambiguous should just be at their name (that is to say without the "London Borough of" or "Royal Borough" for example London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham>Hammersmith and Fulham and Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead>Windsor and Maidenhead per WP:CONCISE? Given that neither OS[3][4] nor EB[5][6] use the prefixes. Obviously one could argue not for consistency and because its natural to refer to them in this way but I'm just wandering. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
@Crouch, Swale: I wouldn't have a strong opinion on that at the moment, but on the face of it I think that would probably be a good plan. We already have districts/metropolitan boroughs at the basename in other areas, e.g. Calderdale, Bracknell Forest, Taunton Deane. I havevn't found any others named "Borough of ..." or "... District" where such a name is unnecessary, although they may exist.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes that's the convention of districts that aren't ambiguous (or are primary) per WP:UKDISTRICTS. I'd note on the other hand that Brighton and Hove is "The City of Brighton and Hove" on OS but the term "Brighton and Hove" exists outside the unitary authority area so the article effectively deals with multiple things so the short title is OK there. On the other hand many might feel that the moves are unnecessary changes though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
@Crouch, Swale: yeah, it's one of those things where you feel like there's a rule and it's being followed then it's probably OK to stick with it. Contrast that with the seemingly random nature of naming for London railway stations, where some are titled London Victoria station, London King's Cross railway station etc, while others are just Euston railway station, Liverpool Street station, even though those are just as often prefixed with "London" in common usage as the others.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Indeed the OS uses just "Liverpool Street" but National Rail includes "London", while for Fenchurch Street the "London" is included by both OS and NR (which probably means that should be moved). I think the "London" is more likely to be added (both in descriptive usage and sources) when the station serves places outside London since to some people only the fact that it goes to London is important (if you coming from Ipswich) than if you're going from Oxford Circus to Chancery Lane. The question there is is "London" integral part of the name or is it just a prepositional phrase similar to the fact that you could say "I'm going to St Ives in Cornwall" but the "in Cornwall" isn't part of the name. With districts the OS seems to use just the name for all districts other than those with city status that are unitary authorities or London boroughs. Another thing is that we for some reason use "X railway station" in article titles when surely it should either be "X Railway Station" (if "Railway Station" is part of the name) or "X (railway station)" if it isn't. See this where I used the capitalized form. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 27Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of Coventry City F.C., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Phillips (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Removing sourcesEdit

With this edit [7] to Lisa Daugaard you removed one of the more detailed sources on her early life from the article. It actually said exactly what was in the cited claim and in the DYK hook, though a quick glance at the first page of the (very long) source article may not make it obvious that a huge part of it is about the subject and her life. I would revert, but I'm already reverting the repeatedly inserted image copyvios. I'm guessing you're in a hurry to do DYK stuff, which I very much appreciate you doing, but now that I've brought the issue to your attention, I hope you will self-revert that source removal, as a service to our readers. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@Indignant Flamingo: thanks for the heads up, and I see now what you mean - the fact in question is on a later page than the which the link takes you to. I was confused because at the nomination page, the citation given is the one in the Goldstein reference, which didn't appear attached to the line supporting the hook. I've added back the other one, so now they both appear against the hook fact. In general I would say that giving refs with "pp. 51–53, 93–95." is not quite specific enough and particular facts should where possible be referenced by just one or two consecutive pages - this avoids the confusion which I found earlier. Cheers, and all the best to you  — Amakuru (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2019Edit

WikiCup 2019 November newsletterEdit

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is   Adam Cuerden (submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 91 featured pictures, including 32 in the final round. Our finalists this year were:

  1.   Adam Cuerden (submissions) with 964 points
  2.   Lee Vilenski (submissions) with 899 points
  3.   Casliber (submissions) with 817 points
  4.   Kosack (submissions) with 691 points
  5.   SounderBruce (submissions) with 388 points
  6.   Enwebb (submissions) with 146 points
  7.   Usernameunique (submissions) with 145 points
  8.   HaEr48 (submissions) with 74 points

All those who reached the final will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field. Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.

We have opened a scoring discussion on whether the rules and scoring need adjustment. Please have your say. Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2020 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth 14:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

  Guideline and policy news

  • A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach processEdit


The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:POTD/2023-09-03Edit

 Template:POTD/2023-09-03 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Pkbwcgs (talk) 14:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Amakuru".