Open main menu

Wikipedia β

User talk:Batternut


Hello, Batternut! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking   or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 01:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do


  The Barnstar of Integrity
For an appreciation of your diligent contributions to cool and sincerely focus the editing and discussion on Middle East politics articles, I felt I should award a barnstar, and this one appears to suit best. 2A1ZA (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Chennai's Economy / GDP of Indian citiesEdit

Hi Batternut. I am sorry for being so late but I would like to clarify the confusion regarding Chennai's Economy's ranking in India which began in July 2015. Please read my full message which firstly clears your probable confusion and then points out the actual facts. It may seem very long. I am sorry but please read it complete.

Well, I am writing this message after reading the discussion regarding this topic at near top of your talk page. After reading that, I know which "Brookings report" you are talking about. I would say that you also misinterpreted that report like all other users. This is the report.[1] Well this report ranks "300 Largest Metropolitan Economies 2013–2014" on the basis of economic performance (judged by GDP per capita change in % and Employment change in %). This is clearly written at the top of column. See APPENDIX A on page 27/44 of PDF (well this page is numbered 25 in the "PDF book", you know like pages are numbered in a book excluding title page and CONTENTS pages). Delhi is ranked at 18, Kolkata at 32, Mumbai at 52 and Chennai at 57. This makes Chennai 4th! 4th in Economic Performance or growth but NOT in total GDP! The report does not rank cities on the basis of total GDP. Don't believe me ? Well, you didn't wonder how the global city leaders New York City, London, Shanghai, Tokyo etc. which must be on the top are not there on the top ? Instead comparatively very smaller cities Macau, Izmir, Bursa, Kunming, Fuzhou etc. feature in the top. This is because their growth rates of GDP and employment are highest and this list is based on these indicators. Economies of New York City, London etc. have attained a kind of stable condition after super rapid growth and are now growing relatively slowly.

Well, we come to the case of India. Mumbai is the financial capital and largest city economy of India but is beaten by Delhi and Kolkata in terms of growth rate of per capita GDP and employment as shown by the report. Mumbai is followed by Delhi, Kolkata, Bangalore, Hyderabad and then Chennai in terms of total GDP (PPP). Here are all the sources.[1][2][3] (The page of last source is divided into slides. It will take time in loading and opens with Mumbai at 1. You will have to click "Next" till you arrive at 6. Chennai.) So, all the three source agree with each other. These figures are actually official statistics either from 2008 or 2011. It will take even more time to find official sources but even these sources are perfectly reliable (it doesn't matter since these are probably the latest figures). According to all these sources, Chennai's economy of US$ 66 Billion ranks 6th after Mumbai ($209 Billion), Delhi ($167 Billion), Kolkata ($150 Billion), Bangalore (83 Billion) and Hyderabad (74 Billion).[2] All figures are in PPP. I think you now got my point.

Unfortunately, this falsifying edit made by you (which you perceived true) wasn't noticed for about one and a half year by anyone until I found it out. Well, I will not point out exact ranking in article Chennai right now as I know I will have to get involved in edit war with some Chennai enthusiasts. You are a more experienced editor than me, so I pointed out this explanation to you. It took me a large time to figure out who made the edit. I had to search the page history of two years. Well, never mind. Perhaps, it will not matter for you much now. Don't take any offense please. Again sorry for the very long explanation. Waiting for your response. Vibhss (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


  • I note the effort and care with which you put your case, and I thank you for that.
  • The Brookings reference that showed Chennai's GDP as 4th in India was not the one you reckoned, but their 2013–2014 Global Metro Monitor, as also cited at List of cities by GDP.
  • Of the 3 sources you found putting Chennai 6th, worldlistmania and mapsofindia both reiterate the Yahoo figures, and they date from 2008, ie 5 or 6 years older than Brookings.
  • You will need some better references to make your case (and for your falsifying accusation to stand...)
  • I have to agree with you that edit wars with city enthusiasts does make it difficult to keep articles accurate, which is why it is good to talk first!

Batternut (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Batternut: Oh ! I apologize for being so much preoccupied. I hurriedly assumed that you edited after reading above mentioned report. Actually, article Chennai had been subject to vandalism for a very long time. Now and then, vandals changed population figures and rankings. That made me think the same regarding GDP. But I am still adamant that official OR PWC GDP FIGURES of 2008[1] are more reliable for GDP calculation. There are many forums which mention GDP figures for cities and rankings of all of them vary. Any one of them can't be acknowledged right and used as source on Wikipedia, specially Brookings. Brookings Institution's data deviate significantly from 2008 official or PWC figures. for Delhi: it goes from 167 bn to 293 bn (probably adding some more suburban areas for GDP calculation, it displaces Mumbai as financial hub), for Mumbai: its 209 bn to 150 bn (not removing any suburban areas from calculation as evident by population in Brookings source), for Kolkata: 104 bn to 60 bn (not removing any suburban areas from calculation as evident by population). How can this be acceptable ? Recently, Oxford Economics also released its list of cities by GDP creating huge controvrsies in India.[2] Its data dethroned the traditional financial capital of India, i.e. Mumbai at the hands of Delhi but by a small extent. It stated Delhi's GDP as of 2015 as 370 bn $ and Mumbai's as 368 bn $[3][4] (again see the difference in figures here). However, the issue later resolved.[2] But Brookings Institution's data creates a much bigger difference between Mumbai and Delhi; Delhi's GDP was mentioned 293 bn $ and Mumbai's 150 bn $; while 2008 official figures for Mumbai stood at 209 bn $ and Delhi's at 167 bn $. All I am saying is PWC[1]seems to be more credible than Brookings as its figures are at par with official figures. So, it must be used as source in Wikipedia city articles instead of Brookings. I think my points and references are now better enough to make my case. Vibhss (talk) 00:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
@Vibhss: There are big differences between Brookings and PWC figures, indeed probably due to differing city/metro boundaries. But why do you say the PWC figure are at par with official figures? What official figures - please provide a source! The Oxford Economics figures for all Indian cities would be interesting to see, but alas that info does not seem to be openly available.
The argument that Brookings' smaller definition of Mumbai's metro area means that their 2014 figure for Chennai is worse than the 2008 PWC figure doesn't seem convincing to me. Batternut (talk) 09:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I pointed out Mumbai's example as argument for Chennai's economy to show you that Brookings' figures are unreasonably low and shrunken for all Indian metros except Delhi. 2008 PwC estimates showed Bangalore's economy of $69 billion to be ahead of Chennai's $66 BN economy. Brookings figure of $45 billion for GDP of Bangalore is much lower than 2008 estimate and places it way behind Chennai. I am not getting the procedure of Brookings for this calculation since population of city proper of Bangalore (8.44 million, 2011 census) is not much lower than that of designated UA/ metropolitan area of Bangalore (8.7 million). So, Brookings definition of city limits / metropolitan area definition seems questionable to me. Well, only this difference in definition is responsible for difference in PwC figures and Brookings figures, right! Moreover Brookings mention near to exact population figures for Bangalore.

For Chennai also, the GDP figure of $58.6 BN is lower than 2008 PwC figure of $66 BN. Now, take the case of Kolkata. Brookings reduced Kolkata's GDP to nearly half value. 2008 figures mention Kolkata's GDP $104 billion which is a likely figure for a metropolitan area in a developing country with population about 15 million. But Brookings drastically reduces this GDP to only $60 billion. Can this be as per its so-called definition ? This figure would have been credible if it was for the main part of city and for the population of that part only. But it is showing GDP figure for population of the greatest extent of Kolkata metropolitan area, i.e. 60 BN for population 14.9 million. Brookings itself mentions Kolkata's population as 14.9 million. Now, when we calculate per capita GDP of this city taking total GDP as 60 BN, it comes out even lower than national average[1] which is impossible. In short, what Brookings is showing as the total GDP is the GDP of a smaller part of city but it calculates GDP per capita by dividing it's obtained figure by total or full population of city which results in much lower per capita GDP. How can this be credible ? I am not saying Brookings has calculated like this for all cities but it has indeed done this for five of the six Indian cities it feature in top 300 cities. (sixth is Delhi for which it has shown inflated figures; only these figures are credible and the per capita GDP of Delhi is also a likely figure). But the shrunken figures of other cities are neither credible nor possible as all these are growing cities. It is not possible to have such wide differences in per capita GDP in these cities as Brookings is showing since poverty is equally prevalent in all these metros.

That's why I am against use of Brookings as GDP source in any of the six Indian city articles including Chennai. Again sorry for very long explanation. Vibhss (talk) 14:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Brookings in 2014 ranked Chennai 4th in India, PWC in 2008 reckoned 5th, McKinsey in 2010 said 6th. They are all well-respected institutions and each has its own methodology. Experts disagree, particularly economists I would say. Thus to say Chennai has the {4th/5th/6th} biggest city economy is close to stating opinion as fact (see WP:YESPOV), ie the opinion of the cited thinktank. The natural tendency would I suspect be for editors of city articles to choose the stats that put their favourite cities in the best light. To achieve WP:Neutral articles a better approach would be to put something like Chennai's economy has recently been ranked between 4th and 6th in India.

To be precise, please don't compare McKinsey figures of 2010 with PwC or Brookings figures of GDP because McKinsey figures mention nominal GDP while PwC and Brookings mention PPP GDP figures. Check List of cities by GDP. If you are into the source, then let me tell you that GDP without any mention of whether it is nominal or PPP GDP is treated as nominal. So, keep McKinsey out from calculation. Besides just because Brookings released its figures after PwC doesn't make PwC figures outdated. PwC has also projected 2025 GDP of all major cities.

In terms of city rank within India, PPP/nominal is irrelevant - 4th place nominal = 4th place PPP (because PPP/nominal ratio is the same for all Indian cities). And projections are irrelevant speculation. Batternut (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

And you didn't get to the core of my previous message. I know Brookings is also a reputed thinktank. I didn't mean that Brookings mention wrong figures for all cities but it's peculiar figures for all Indian cities (way large for Delhi, smaller for Mumbai, almost half for Kolkata than previous estimate, smaller for Chennai and way too small for Bangalore and Hyderabad) astonished me and would seem questionable to anyone. Yes, discussion on this topic is needed but until the result of that discussion, we better mention 2008 PwC figures on the concerned articles. Vibhss (talk) 15:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

This discussion is bloating my talk page! I have started a new topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian Economy#City economy size and rank claims - a consensual approach. Further discussion added here will be moved to that talk page. Batternut (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Population of DelhiEdit

Hi. I am not sure whether you know all this or not but please read this very long message complete. Delhi is a peculiar case among Indian settlements. It is an unofficial state of India (having its own state government but still not regarded as state), a union territory (seat of union government) and also a city (area in limits of Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Now, According to Census 2011, NCT of Delhi has population 16.8 million (97% is continuously urban; 16.35 million). This 16.3 million population is that of main urban agglomeration of "city-proper" of Delhi having population of 11 million. Whole UA is located in the NCT itself. Census of India regards Delhi's short UA as located in NCT limits only. Now we come to Delhi's EUA (Extended Urban Agglomeration) which is Delhi's metropolitan area (this includes UAs of mainly cities of Gurgaon, Faridabad, Noida and Ghaziabad along with NCT. This EUA form a much smaller part of much larger NCR. This EUA had a population of 21.7 million as per 2011 census. GDP figures of Delhi are calculated either for shorter UA of Delhi with 2011 population 16.3 million or for larger EUA of Delhi with 2011 population of 21.7 million. It goes like Delhi City (11 million)--> Delhi UA (16.3 million)--> Delhi NCT (16.8 million)--> Delhi EUA (21.7 million)--> Delhi NCR (46 million).

I want to tell you clearly that NCR is a much larger region which includes NCT and many surrounding districts of states Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and even Rajasthan (which does not share boundaries with NCT anywhere). Most of these districts are primarily rural and total population of this huge NCR becomes over 46 million and includes both urban and rural areas (total population is simply calculated by adding 2011 census population of NCT and the selected districts of above mentioned states). This huge NCR includes far flung cities like Sonipat, Panipat, Alwar etc. which are totally discontinuous with Delhi interrupted by miles of forests, farms and numerous villages. Actually, NCR is a large geographical region incorporating NCT and those districts of neighbouring states which are in extended vicinity of Delhi NCT.

So, we conclude that whole NCR is not the urban area of Delhi but a small part of NCR is urban area (EUA) of Delhi (incl. NCT of Delhi, Gurgaon, Faridabad, Ghaziabad and Noida; all these are extremely contiguous and hence make a continuous urban spread of Delhi). If you are not satisfied with my claims, I can provide you source. You can yourself see population source on article NCR.

Now, regarding your edits on Delhi, you provided a different year figure for urban area as per a Demographia source while other figures are as per 2011 census. Some of your edits regarding population have to be undone. All population figures must be as per 2011 census. Hope you understand. Vibhss (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Vibhss: Firstly thanks for your message, and for checking the edits.
My population edits ignored NCR - it is, I concur with you, irrelevant. I don't know why you talk about it at all.
When talking population stats we shouldn't worry about GDP - the are no official figures, other than GSDP which simply covers the NCT of Delhi.
Nobody is contesting the population of NCT of Delhi (16.8 million)
City population could be contentious, but the 11 million census figure is as used on List of cities in India by population.
With urban area, metropolitan area, urban agglomeration there is *generous* scope for disagreement!

Regarding your edits:

  • Where does your density figure come from? I used the 2011 census figure (29,298 /mi2)
  • I don't see the point of short UA figure, 16.3 million, being almost the same as the whole NCT figure it's not very notable - the extended UA figure is more interesting.
  • Extended urban area / metro area is interesting: 21 or 25 million. We should talk about that on the Delhi talk page.

Batternut (talk) 12:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


This edit, it has 2016. But the page column mentions 2011. Please check that.--Vin09(talk) 14:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

True. The page needs some updating, I suspect most of the figure are no longer 2011. I might get round to it sometime - feel free to have a go yourself... Batternut (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

R: Prod of Manorama BaiEdit

Is there some reason you chose PROD instead of CSD or AfD? I was kinda confused when I saw the tag was a PROD. L3X1 (distant write) 01:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't see any urgency or other factor that suggested CSD. I'm less familiar with AfD, it not having an obviously easy button to push on the Twinkle menu! Frankly any of PROD, CSD or AfD would be OK by me. Batternut (talk) 08:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Al-Masdar News for deletionEdit


A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Al-Masdar News is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Masdar News until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tradediatalk 03:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:TranslationEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Translation. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

OR using a primary sourceEdit

@Stickee: Could you help me understand the OR/primary source policy, as relates to my use of a Google result count on Al-Masdar News? Excuse me for being possibly slow to get the point...

So, WP:Primary says "articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources".

I understand that the Google page saying "About 5,560 results" is a primary source for the statement "Other news sites have quoted Al-Masdar News thousands of times".

The policy is "... primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care," and "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source."

Do you see my statement as interpretation, rather than a "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts", which is allowed?

Thanks for your help... Batternut (talk) 01:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Batternut, I'll link you to a previous example (using Google Web search hits rather than Google News search hits). Particular quote from an admin: "I'll agree with the chorus here that analyzing Google search results is an extreme example of OR (it's not even an analysis of a reliable primary source)." Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 10#Counting Google hits and dictionary entries to support a claim. Stickee (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
While I agree with some of the comments in that discussion, I don't think that the admin's conclusion applies to the AMN "Other news sites have quoted..." case. The Daylight saving time case features "analyzing Google search results", whereas the AMN case does not, to my mind, involve analyzing. Batternut (talk) 09:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Could you please look into this "North India" thing.Edit

This user Fylindfotberserk has just escalated all those issues from geography/culture to racism and spoiled all my discussion thread! I just wanted to tell you that NCZCC site is worth mentioning on North India page as it was earlier mentioned and it was there for years. Even look at the map available on North India, It talks about states in North central Cultural zone as well. And also there is no proper definition of "North Central India" as well, as it is considered to be a part of North India only. As you can notice it has componet states from NZCC as well, no other cultural zone have states form nzcc. And if this can't be there as it is a cultural site, then why is there nzcc used as primary reference? Why not just geological survey of India site, as this page is more about geographical location of north india and not cultural. And if cultural is used, it should be used a whole, because both north and north central are overalapping and are a part of region that makes North India in its entirety (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay So I have found one "Times of India" article which clearly says North Indian states as from Punjab to Bihar. Here's the link (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC) One more (talk) 05:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Again — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out these links. The Times of India and the FirstPost articles are useful - I have just mentioned them in North India#Wider definition. The goUNESCO article however, even though well written, seems likely to be user content. Batternut (talk) 07:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formattingEdit

Proposed deletion of ARA NewsEdit

Hello, Batternut. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, ARA News, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

  1. edit the page
  2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
  3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Winged Blades Godric 04:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Illegality of Facebook reference countEdit

(Discussion moved to Talk:Hawar News Agency.) Batternut (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Illegal RefsEdit

(2 comments from scope_creep moved to discussion at Talk:Hawar News Agency.) Batternut (talk) 08:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Hawar News AgencyEdit


The article Hawar News Agency has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The article appears to be about an organization or web content, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. With the exception of primary sources the supplied sources are not about the subject. The sources do not confer notability. Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Hawar News Agency for deletionEdit


A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hawar News Agency is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hawar News Agency until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Requested move 18 July 2017Edit

I have closed your RfC on talk:ISIL and reopend it as an RM because the requested moves process is the best one to use for requested moves. This is for several reasons:

  1. Generally it is a shorter process so decisions are reached more quickly.
  2. It tends to attract more editors who have an interest and expertise in page titles over and above those who lurk around the talk page of a specific article. An RfC is less likely to attract such expertise.
  3. The process and closing of an RM is tailored made for moving pages. It includes a move review option for anyone thinks that the process had not been followed correctly.

I will post this explanation to the talk page of the article. -- PBS (talk) 11:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts, but I am not requesting a move at this point - a move request needs a specific name to move the article to. Batternut (talk) 22:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

As I said in this edit The edits I made to Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Requested move 18 July 2017 are administrative edits I made this clear on the talk page:

I have done this as an administrator under "Page restrictions" of the discretionary sanctions that operate on this page, and I will not be involved in the discussion or the close. If you wish to question this decision then in the first instance please leave a message on my talk page. -- PBS (talk) 12:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

If you revert my revert to your removal of my edits to the talk page I will take administrative action against you. -- PBS (talk) 06:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

  Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

-- PBS (talk) 06:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

FYI, 1RR doesn't apply to the talk page, just to the article, but I accept that you can whack me with your GS admin mace for anything :-( Batternut (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

ANI#Unwelcome conversion of RfC to RMEdit

In reply to your most recent posting to my talk page. AFAICT not one admin has commented in the ANI section Unwelcome conversion of RfC to RM.

If you want me to changed back, you would do well to explain why you phrased you RfC as you did (not neutral) and specifically why the sentence "Note that this is an RFC, not a move request - the qualifier is still to-be-decided (TBD). If the consensus is to rename, then a subsequent discussion can choose the qualifier" does did not have the capacity to sow discord. It would also help if you explained why you decided to use biased language in the ANI section title "unwelcome conversion of RfC to RM". If you want support for other options then propose them for example, the mess could be closed and you can start a fresh RM.

So that every one can read it if you decide to reply then please do so in the relevant ANI section. -- PBS (talk) 07:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

No RfC for discussing title of the article Islamic State of Iraq and the LevantEdit

I think that this edit. Needs further clarification.

Under the of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, will you agree:

  1. Not to initiate an RfC to discuss the title of the article Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant;
  2. That while you may initiate an ordinary section to discuss the title of the article, you will not do so more than once every six months;
  3. That you may initiate an WP:RM to request a change in the article title, but only after at least six months have passed since the last RM.

If as requested I can close the current RM (others may object), then as a technical closure, it will not be considered a RM affecting number three above.

-- PBS (talk) 11:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks for taking the time to spell out your position. I agree that six months between RMs is reasonable, provided they are sensible requests that gain a decent level of debate. I am currently of the opinion that, prior to another RM, a better-focussed and possibly rather technical discussion aimed purely at agreeing the current "common name" of the group would be worthwhile. Clearly such a discussion, if consensus reached, would have direct effect upon the raising of another RM. I will probably run the wording of any such discussion by you first; hoping not to appear Machiavellian or to sneak something under anybody's radar; and then raise it as a normal discussion on the ISIL talk page - unless you advise and I agree to using a different forum or mechanism. Batternut (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

To avoid conflicting outcomes as you envisaged at the ANI, a follow-on RM would be final, but only arguments other than common name would be considered. This should be spelled out clearly in the RM. Batternut (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
(btw, I will on holiday in a few days time, and expect to be quiet for a month. Batternut (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC))
OK I'll take that as a yes. As there have been no objections (by any other editor) to the closure of the RfC/RM I will close it, and I will also close the ANI.
I can not control the input of other editors to an RM (nor would I want to), but you will have the option to use the "move review" if you think that the closer has given undue weight to opinions that are not supported by the WP:AT policy and its naming conventions.
You are now bound by the three conditions above. I will be adding notification of such to the general sanctions page.
-- PBS (talk) 14:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
@PBS: We agree a mutually acceptable way forward, and you list it under the GS Log of blocks and bans (and without the Minimum information of "what was done and the basis for doing it"). A "gentleman's agreement" should have sufficed (regardless of your gender). You might reconsider this action? Batternut (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LibrariesEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Libraries. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Syrian Civil WarEdit

Hello, according to your source in the list of aviation incidents and accidents in the Syrian civil war you said that a drone was shot down over Syria, however according to your source the drone was shot down over Israel. Oscarm18 (talk) 02:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Oscarm18: The source (not mine) says near Quneitra in the DMZ between Syria and the Golan Heights. Batternut (talk) 07:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Largest cities of IndiaEdit

Just to give you the explanation that I think is due, I had a brain fart. There was a recent discussion and I misread the first part "duplicates Million-plus agglomerations in India" as related, hence referring to WP:TFD. I somehow didn't read the second part, "not suitable as navbar", which I totally agree with. Anyway, apologies for the extra work. --Muhandes (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

We've all been there! Thanks. Batternut (talk) 16:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


Other 'faces include Molecular Dynamic and Holographic. After that it's Direct Neural Interfaces "CyberJack" and ultimately... PsiTech. Thereafter the human/machine interface becomes somewhat blurred...

Rather like my crispy pixel gif! Brobof (talk) 10:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

List of largest cities - NYCEdit

Just to clarify my edit (the one you reverted) on the population of New York city, I was actually reverting what looked like an arbitrary change of the population to 10,550,405 at 11:24 on October 26. Up until that point, the population had been listed for some time as 8,550,405. For what it's worth, the linked NYT source from 2011 states a population of 8,175,133. However the NYC official website, states a population of 8,550,405 as of 2017. So it seems the population figure of 10,550,405 has no basis, while 8,550,405 does have a (albeit currently un-cited) reliable source. Ropo153 (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ropo153: Without any edit comment, your first update of just the figure looked pretty random, and it didn't match the citation. But now that you have found a source to match the figure, that's good work - thanks! Batternut (talk) 23:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


Hi Battermut. I noticed you reverted these edits. My apologies of course if it conveyed the impression that I was archiving our discussion, but that wasn't the intention. I wanted to make the discussions concisely structured, that's why wrote "Extended discussion" within it, changing the "archiving" message. But again, my apologies if it conveyed otherwise. Thanks, Lourdes 00:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page ReviewingEdit

Hello, Batternut.

I noticed you've done some constructive editing recently.
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. User:Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 07:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Rfc noticeEdit

More options have been added to the Rfc at Charles, Prince of Wales. You many want to put that article on your watchlist :) GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Wilfrid Laurier UniversityEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Wilfrid Laurier University. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences surveyEdit

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

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

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

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

Please comment on Talk:FatimaEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fatima. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter messageEdit

  Hello, Batternut. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

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

Template:Million-plus agglomerations in IndiaEdit

Hi, the reason why I chose States over Zonal Councils is because the latter is NOT a census-defined entity. The census data essentially pertains to states, districts and cities/towns/villages/UAs – UAs have nothing to do with "administration". Vensatry (talk) 08:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017Edit

Moved discussion to Talk:Khulna#Population figures. Batternut (talk) 09:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Useful idiotEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Useful idiot. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

South Africa article revert of editEdit

Hi there, I believe you reverted my edit on South Africa due to clarity on the subject of South African English. Please see that clearly explains using many references the style used in South African English. 1 234 567,00 not 1,234,567.00 or 12,4 million not 12.4 million. Please respect this. I think this is proof enough. Please check what changes you reverted and put them back. I am an English speaker from South Africa and I can assure you from personal experience that this is what is done here. Since this is an article strongly associated with South Africa, it should follow South African conventions.

Thanks Waddie96 (talk) 14:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC) Waddie96 (talk) 14:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Waddie96: It's an interesting question. Do you know of other South Africa associated articles that use gaps for number grouping? I think there's a good discussion to be had here, if it hasn't been discussed before. Am just wondering where/which forum would be best. I'll get on this shortly... Batternut (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
I've started a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Africa#Should South Africa articles use "continental system" numbers?. Batternut (talk) 10:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
The follow-up discussion for your proposal (here) has received a rather comprehensive rebuttal from an MoS old hand. Batternut (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


Sorry to have accidentally deleted your comment... but I don't understand why you didn't keep mine as well when you re-inserted yours. --Macrakis (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

There were some other changes, maybe someone had done some thread archiving, which you seemed to have clobbered, so I just hit the quick-and-easy rollback button... Batternut (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

European citiesEdit

Thanks, but I do not work twice. It is easy to delete someone else's work. The data is old, old, irrelevant. Eurostat 2011 it is absolute useless. I wanted to make some updates, but I changed my plans. I don't care about the subject. The page-site is uninteresting with the ancient data. Update you, of course...European cities. Thanks and good luck with the work ^-^. --MIRAIL (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MIHAIL (talkcontribs)

It can be tedious I know, but if you don't provide sources for the figures you give, they fail the WP:VERIFIABILITY policy. It is part of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia - "all articles must strive for verifiable accuracy". Batternut (talk) 12:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of StyleEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Hindi beltEdit

Just calculate... India's population is 1.3 billion and 41% speak Hindi saying their mother tongue. So Hindi speakers are more than 500 millions plus Urdu speakers. Abhay Agrawal (talk) 05:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Do be aware of the WP policy on Wikipedia:No original research - one has to ask when and where did that 41% figure come from; and does it apply to the current population of India? Batternut (talk) 08:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of StyleEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Amity Greater NoidaEdit

-> please keep conversation together at User talk:CSM007. Batternut (talk) 09:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dorothy TarrantEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dorothy Tarrant. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:"Polish death camp" controversyEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:"Polish death camp" controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Simon's SircusEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Simon's Sircus. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

"United Kingdom" in 18th centuryEdit

The point is that "Great Britain" was called exactly that, and never "United Kingdom" as a name. The name of "United Kingdom" was invented in 1800, taking effect in 1801. If you read the Treaty of Union and the Acts of Union, you'll see they use capital letters for a huge number of nouns, and even for some adjectives - for instance, for the term "One Kingdom". Some non-academic sources misunderstand or misrepresent the facts of this, sometimes misunderstanding, sometimes disingenuously relying on, the use of "United Kingdom" as a description in 1707. No one has come up with any instances of "United Kingdom" being used as a name in the 18th century, but a negative like that can't be proved. It isn't helpful for the Wikipedia page to fudge this and mislead people Moonraker (talk) 20:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the message Moonraker, it is an interesting observation. The implication is that descriptions "Kingdom of Great Britain" and "United Kingdom of Great Britain" have no great significance, as the adjective 'Kingdom' and adjectival phrase 'United Kingdom' are merely capitalized out of a older typographic standard. Thus it is incorrect for us now to interpret those passages as alternate names, which is rather implied by the article as it is. It makes sense to me, but I think we would need to cite someone else pointing it out to avoid OR. If no such citation can be found, my approach would be to remove that passage completely, ie The 1707 Acts of Union declared that the kingdoms of England and Scotland were "United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain", though the new state is also referred to in the Acts as the "Kingdom of Great Britain", "United Kingdom of Great Britain" and "United Kingdom". Batternut (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that would be helpful. I strongly suspect the term "Kingdom of Great Britain" has been invented on Wikipedia, to disambiguate from the island of Great Britain, but it's hard to fathom and I may be wrong. All hits for "Kingdom of Great Britain" on Jstor and Google books before about 2000 turn out to be for "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland", or Northern Ireland. At first sight, it doesn't seem like a big deal, but some confusion can happen if the 18th-century Great Britain starts to get mixed up with the 19th-century and later United Kingdom, including all or part of Ireland. It does happen. Moonraker (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


Hi, when nominating stuff for deletion, there's a general expectation (as the instructions say), to notify the creator of the page and/or substantial contributors. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 15:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 25#Pahari languages is not a deletion discussion, it's about changing the target of a redirect. Apologies though, if it has caused offence. Batternut (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Of course it has not caused offence, but after seeing your AfD and then the RfD I thought you might not be aware of the general expectation. – Uanfala (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I'd forgotten (already!) the AfD of Pahari language - the raising of that was a response to your revert of my revert of that article, so it seemed obvious that you would see the AfD, which indeed you did. I used Twinkle to raise the AfD, which notified the creator at User talk:Bkag009. I take the point though that major contributors may no longer be watching the page. Batternut (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Moscow Paveletskaya railway stationEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Moscow Paveletskaya railway station. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Good faith?Edit

Your edits to be honest weren't in good faith but in ignorance as the article itself or my edits that appear in the article didn't have any indic script. The link rather leads to the section of the article which is in a different language but is still written in Roman script which you probably didn't bother to check. That section of that article shows the "demonyms" used by the locals themselves in Roman script. Goans don't call themselves goan in their own language. (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, this edit, you are quite right. My revert comment should have been "Not English, and refs WP:CIRCULAR." Batternut (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Btw, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary also applies. Your other edits remain entirely welcome of course, afaik. And please do consider creating an account - it's very quick, and makes it easy for you to keep an eye on your favourite articles. Batternut (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand why you deleted the Kokani & Marathi & Portuguese demonyms for Goans which someone else had added but kept the terms "indiacatos" & "mestiços". The people of Goa are indeed called Govekar, I know that because I'm Kokani myself & Goan is a word almost never used by locals unless they're speaking in English which means it's a foreign word used when speaking a foreign language. Mentioning the local words for a particular demonym is in nearly every Wikipedia article & it should be mentioned cause people reading it need to know what terms or words locals use to describe themselves in their own language. Why would you disagree with that? My previous edit had a link to the goan kokani article's subsection that mentioned the demonyms in English, Marathi & Kokani but later I just wrote that those words were mentioned in the subsection to of the main article itself but you removed that. I'm getting a feeling you're being rather one sided against Marathi & Kokani language which is inappropriate cause you kept the two Portuguese terms as it is. (talk) 06:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Did you read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary? Look at France, or Germany - under demonym does it list francais, or deutsch? No. This is the English language wikipedia, it is written in English. Consider starting a discussion at Talk:Goa and build a consensus if you want to pursue this. Repeated edits counter to Wikipedia policy will be seen as disruptive editing. Batternut (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
There's probably a good case under NOTDICT for removing indiacatos too, and perhaps mestiços (although mestizo is used in English). I have nothing against Marathi, Kokani or any other language, indeed I wish them and their wikis well. Regarding other articles with foreign language demonyms, feel free to tell me and I will fix them too. Or indeed you could do it. Batternut (talk) 10:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't see as many wikipedia pages as probably you do cause edits or whatever it is that you do on wikipedia isn't necessarily for me as hobby. I only remember a few countries mostly cause they play Cricket I checked there pages a few times like Australia is not just Australian, NZ is not just New Zealander, Wales is not just Welsh, etc. I'm sure you'll be able to find more since that's what you do. What is your issue with the article describing in it's population section the different words or demonyms used by locals? Why is that so hard for you to accept that such information could be given in wikipedia? Being English as the language of the article does it means that even small information like Goans are called Govekar in their own language isn't allowed? Wikipedia is supposed to be for gaining information including those small ones that you'd get from first hand sources. I did read that link you sent & may be you could tell me exactly which section forbids mentioning of such info even in the section of the article of locals if it's not in English in case I missed it. Is that how knowledge spreads? Restricting everything that's not English? It's not like an entire para or sentence was being written in a different language, it's just a few words regarding demonym. No one really uses Goan in Goa or outside as much unless it's English speaking elites cause even English speaking locals say Govekar. This seems more about arrogance of some anglophones than any policy but if there's any that I missed that forbids mentioning any word of foreign language in giving any extra info on wikipedia which I wrongfully thought was for getting info on different topics & subjects you can point it out specifically so I could know. (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
As you feel strongly about this you should start a discussion at Talk:Goa - with some evidence on the use of Govekar in English works you may be able to convince enough people. The Australia article lists Aussie but that is a very commonly used colloquialism, as is Kiwi for New Zealander. Cymry on the Wales article looks wrong to me - I'll look into it. Batternut (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
It surprised me, but Cymry is in my old Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary. Neither Govekar nor Goenkar are though. Batternut (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure it is cause Wales is part of UK so it could be in an English dictionary. There are many words in my Oxford dictionary new editions & many aren't that are not of English origin (Cymry isn't there in any of my Oxford dictionaries). Just because a word is in the dictionary or didn't manage to get in the dictionary doesn't validates or invalidates the authenticity of a word or it's legitimate existence or use. It only means makers of that dictionary knew those words or didn't. Is the word Goan in it too? It's not in my Oxford dictionaries. Look at Monaco or Brussels or Quebec - under demonym does it list Monégasque or Bruxellois(e) & Brusselse or Québécois & Québécoise? Yes. I just looked for a few & found some. There will be more cause it's part of basic information about the people of any given place & it's validity isn't dependent on your dictionary nor it's use in English language especially since the native people aren't anglophones. About your earlier comment, I read again & realised it was quite arrogant may be you didn't meant it that way but now you're saying a Welsh language demonym is valid according to you cause you see it in your dictionary. I think you forgot "This is the English language wikipedia, it is written in English", your words. You can keep your above mentioned well wish with yourself cause I don't think it's needed. A non English word inducted in some English language dictionary doesn't make it English which I'm sure you'd agree. Why not check yourself online if these words are really valid or not. My earlier edit had a link for Govekar to a dictionary but may be you prefer only the one you have in your possession which is unfortunate cause I've never heard of it so I can't be sure of it's quality. No one would really use Cymry in English but it's in your dictionary to give that extra knowledge to you that such a word is used in the local language to describe it's people so you can learn something new that you'd never learn from purely isolationist use of English that you're advocating. So, is Goan in your dictionary or you'd make it your exception if it's not? I always heard wikipedia isn't a good source of information although I never cared about it before but I understand that now. Then I'll simply use different sources to read more often instead of wikipedia everytime where the info may be the same but without oversmart anglophile randomly anti non English language police trolls cause I saw you showed the same behaviour regarding Maharashtriya in the Maharashtra article. (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Dear, your time and effort would be much better spent arguing your case at Talk:Goa. Do you really believe what you have argued above? If so, start a discussion about it at Talk:Goa - click on "New Section", give a subject/headline such as "Other demonyms", and put your case in the big text box. Your voice will be heard there. Batternut (talk) 12:32, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Problems in *List of cities proper by population*Edit

Please comment on Talk:Remington ACR rifleEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Remington ACR rifle. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Batternut".