Together.pngTogether.pngPeace symbol.svgTogether.pngTogether.png
I am always very busy, and I can't edit as often as I'd like. However, I do check
Wikipedia from time to time. If you leave a message here, I will notice it eventually.
I try to accept criticism of my edits and responsibility for my comments,
and we should be able to resolve any editing disputes amicably.
Feel free to express your opinion or ask for my help.
I have an archive of older topics from this page. It can be accessed here.

Deletion of redirectEdit

Hey, please don't delete a redirect just because a RM closed as move. If that was the result, the redirect should be moved, including all incoming links. As it stands you not only deleted a redirect, but left incorrect incomings link that are meant for the Arrow TV version of the character. Gonnym (talk) 10:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Gonnym. When a move like this occurs, it is not necessarily the case that all of the incoming links to the redirect are intended for the previous target of the redirect. In fact, the consensus to move to the base title is often an indication that many of the old links to the redirect may have been intended for the other article. I understand that it was not true in this case because you seem to have cleaned up the links in the past, but moving the redirect in every case would require each closer to determine a valid alternative redirect to the previous target article, and then wait for all of the double redirects to be shifted to the new target before completing the move. Unless something has changed recently, all that is usually required is instead to check to be sure there is not substantial edit history on the target page. I will be careful not to unnecessarily break links and to check the links to the target; in fact, when I first started editing Wikipedia I mainly worked on fixing ambiguous or incorrect links. Best, Dekimasuよ! 10:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe I have fixed all of the links to the character. Dekimasuよ! 10:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I was the one who created the redirect in the first place it seems (as it was on my watch list, but you could probably see in the history). If that is the case, every link that was there was a valid one as I was the one that made those connections. I did not vote in that discussion as I really could not care if the page moved or not, however, that was not a RfD discussion, which if it was I would have voted oppose for its deletion. Additionally, your fix to the incoming links is also incorrect. Arrowverse (and other similar topics, like MCU redirects), do not link to the comic book article but to a specific redirect. Please restore the previous redirect with its history to Jake Simmons (Arrowverse) so I can correctly fix those links. I do not remember by heart what the target was and what categories that redirect had which is why I'm requesting its restoration. Gonnym (talk) 11:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The target of Jake Simmons had been a direct link to Deathbolt (i.e. simply "#REDIRECT [[Deathbolt]]") since October 2021, so the links I fixed had been redirecting directly to Deathbolt already, and overwriting redirects as part of a move discussion does not require a separate RfD. As a matter of process, it would be impossible to expect those moving a page to guess that there might have been preexisting objections to the stable target of a redirect. However, I think the link you want is List of supporting Arrow characters#Jake Simmons / Deathbolt and I will restore the redirect history there given that it seems you would have objected to the stable redirect. Best, Dekimasuよ! 11:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requesting Reconsideration Of "Triangle Daruma" Section Deletion...Edit

Hello...I appreciate your quick attention to my addition of the "Triangle Daruma" section on the "Daruma Doll" page. Rather than make a separate page for this folk art form, I added it to the main page for "Daruma Doll." I would like to have the section return to the page, and respectfully ask that you reconsider.

I get over one million results when I search Google for "三角だるま" or "三角達磨" and over two million when I search for "三角ダルマ". There are over 3,000 English results for "sankaku daruma," but only 200 for "triangle daruma." If you prefer that I list and identify it as "sankaku daruma," I certainly would be glad to edit the section to reflect that header.

Also, I am very willing to add more information and attributions from deeper sources, as I had done in adding the newspaper article. The source from 2004 did assert that Imai's son was the only maker of these figures at the time, but since 2018 they are crafted by a contingent of women in Agano City, where they are listed as a cultural property. This is from Japanese Wikipedia, where these dolls have their own page: 三角達磨

These figures are an historic folk art form in Japan, which I believe is evidenced by their extensive presence in online articles found through native Google searches. I feel they are significant cultural adaptations of the Daruma doll phenomenon and a relevant folk art form in their own right.

Thank you so much for your consideration... DDDnfl (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for bringing the conversation to my talk page. I think you may not be putting your search terms in quotation marks when using Google. I get 80 hits for "三角達磨" in quotes, 95 for "三角だるま", and 90 for "三角ダルマ". Some of these are false positives, and most are selling the figures online. These are all what you call native Google searches, I suppose. "Sankaku daruma" in quotes yields 35 hits, and "triangle daruma" under 20. The best source I can find on them in English is Mingei: Japan's Enduring Folk Arts by Amaury Saint-Gilles, which has one page of description, although the author is not a specialist. I think it might make sense to have a sentence in the article about these (probably under the "Shape" subsection of "Physical features and symbolism") but am not convinced that they should take up over 10% of the article or have a separate section. Best, Dekimasuよ! 16:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your reply! I will add a sentence in the shape section as you recommend. Many thanks. DDDnfl (talk) 11:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kharkiv CollegiumEdit

Dear Dekimasu, I'm writing you regarding the discussion on the page Talk:Kharkiv Collegium. I've been very busy the last three days and haven't had time to reply. I have more arguments and I would like to have the opportunity to continue the discussion. I didn't know that in three days it would be closed. Can you please reopen the discussion or should I start a new one below? Ушкуйник (talk) 07:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ушкуйник, thank you for your message. Move requests are usually closed after one week of discussion, and this discussion was open for two weeks. I believe it would be better to start a new discussion than to reopen the previous one. The older discussion needed to be reset in order to establish a status quo and prevent edit warring. (Please take to heart the comments I made about establishing consensus before making additional changes related to the title or its spelling in the article.) However, you may find that some editors would also object to creating a new move request immediately after the previous close. Rather than starting a new official move request, it might be better to build consensus through normal talk page discussion first, and then move on to a move request if necessary once the general direction of that discussion becomes clearer. Best, Dekimasuよ! 07:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear Dekimasu, the problem is that it would be important to hear the opinions of other colleagues who are specialists in Slavic Studies. Just for that reason I would prefer to be able to post my answer within the discussion that already exists. Would it be technically possible for you to reopen the discussion or is it difficult? Ушкуйник (talk) 07:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If your concern is citing something specific in the previous discussion in order to reply to it, I would suggest adding a new talk section in which you quote it or refer to a diff. The contents are readily available on the same page, so this should not cause too much trouble for readers and editors. It should not be necessary to reopen the move request; continuing the conversation does not require any change to the close of the previous discussion. (Technically, there is a review process available at Wikipedia:Move review if you think I have done something incorrect, but I do not believe that is the case.) Finally, when you say that you would like to hear the opinions of other specialists, while notifying WikiProjects of discussions is generally fine, please be sure not to engage in canvassing. Dekimasuよ! 07:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Closing the Shining (video game series) RMEdit

I am raising a concern there that your closure there was a pile-on supervote; the opposers operate entirely on the basis of rejecting definite articles as a good enough small detail, but I believe that is against our consistency policy due to longstanding precedent supporting the definite article as sufficient disambiguation. Much evidence that this is the case is cited this other RM I closed. Consideration of policy outweighs headcounts; doing otherwise is like failing to delete articles on blatantly non-notable things just because a majority voted to keep. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Mellohi. Actually, I left you a message about relisting a while ago; not sure if you have seen it. First, I had no preference in this discussion, nor do I have any objection whatsoever to WP:SMALLDETAILS. Usually it is better to say less in a close; my comment below does not indicate that I had any particular motivation for the close at the time, but since you have asked me to look at the close again, I will try to reevaluate it objectively here.
WP:SMALLDETAILS is not absolute ("small details are usually sufficient"), which means that arguments by editors that titles that differ only slightly are ambiguous cannot be rejected out of hand. Those editors did not state that they reject disambiguation by definite article in general, but that they objected to disambiguation by the definite article in this particular case. Of course it is best for us to reach consistency in our titling over time—which is one of the reasons I help at WP:RM—but the stable title is the current one because the previous move took place in 2020, and it was clear that the discussion, which had been open for ten days, was not going to lead to consensus in favor of a change. Leaving open such a discussion when the final outcome is clear is not constructive.
I looked at your close at Talk:The Blacklist since you mentioned it here, and while I do not have particular objections to it, as closers we are tasked with weighing how requests coincide with guidelines and policy, and with evaluating consensus interpretations of existing policy. I would not write that "many of [the opposing arguments] are rooted in refusing to accept that definite articles are sufficient WP:SMALLDETAILS to discount blacklisting from consideration" because this ventures into analysis of the motivations of the editors, who are likely to be editing in good faith and using their own interpretation of the policy, rather than taking a stand against it or being oblivious to it. (Their argument appears to rely on the idea that use of the phrase "the B/blacklist" to refer to one particular blacklist has become basically idiomatic, whereas presumably they would not make the same argument in distinguishing a work from a word in the case of nonidiomatic use of the definite article, e.g. distinguishing The Godfather and Godfather or The Joshua Tree and Joshua Tree.) Likewise, personally I wouldn't write "other weak arguments relied on by the opposers include..." because it's likely to antagonize the participants whereas the close should ideally return everyone to productive editing in other areas.
Of course, closes do not need to follow headcounts. I closed an RM with one support and one oppose as consensus to move just a few hours after the close you are pointing out, because the "opposer" supplied no prima facie argument: Talk:Porte de Clichy. That is a particularly straightforward case, but at any rate I do not simply count the number of editors in favor of a position. Best, Dekimasuよ! 02:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand your methodology and how you view SMALLDETAILS differently than I do (you believing in a case-by-case approach and me under a precedent approach). Thank you for your thoughts. I also acknowledge that my closure reasons occasionally show signs of needing more care to assume good faith to even those I am not convinced by. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, I did read your previous message; that led me to stop voting and relisting in the same move discussion from then on. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion on closing the RM of Swami KriyanandaEdit

Dear Dekimasu, I realize that you have closed the RM discussion of the page Kriyananda. I would like to suggest that the arguments put forward by me endorsing the RM were entirely aligned with Wikipedia:CRITERIA, while OP's arguments lacked the reasoning on the same criteria. I would like to quote WP:TALKDONTREVERT : "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever."

The OP is strongly opposing my RM, yet they are not supporting their arguments with good reasoning (rather tends to overweigh on personal preference, often masquereding it as a preference of the article subject himself (Kriyananda). I request you to re-look at the discussion from this perspective. Bluesky whiteclouds (talk) 17:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(1)In regards to your discussion on Precision and Concision - Kriyananda is the precise and concise name to use. There is no one else on Wikipedia using the name Kriyananda so no confusion exists. A person can search for Swami Kriyananda or Kriyananda and they are directed to the Kriyananda page. On top that if there is another Kriyananda on Wiki, a disambiguation notice can be placed at the top of the page.(2) in regards to consistency here are just two examples of swamis without the title in their name on Wikipedia [[1]], [[2]], (3) Don't assume other editors have personal preferences because they do not agree with your assessment.Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bluesky whiteclouds, as a neutral observer, there was no agreement as to whether the proposed title better fit several of the article naming criteria (concision, precision, and consistency). You were the "OP" of this request, but if you are using that as short for "opposition" here, then I would note that several editors contributed different perspectives with basis in policy and guidelines. In addition, other policy concerns like WP:TITLECHANGES and guidelines such as WP:NCIN#Titles and honorifics (as you noted in the request) may apply to this case. I understand that it can be difficult to share the perspective of other editors when participating in these sorts of discussions, but when there is no consensus the status quo is maintained, and here the status quo is also in line with the naming convention. (Note that the naming convention says "Exceptions may be made in cases where the subject is not known except with titles or other honorifics, or where they become the best means of disambiguation", but the title does not serve as disambiguation here and the subject is known to some extent without the title.)
It is true that the quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. However, conversely, it is important to consider carefully the possibility that the majority may have reasonable grounds for taking its position. Dekimasuよ! 07:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear Dekimasu and Red Rose 13, thanks for your reply. I meant "other person" by OP, sorry for confusion! You know, the subject is known to great extent with the "Swami" in his name. There may not be consistency by himself in using that name, but he was known as Swami Kriyananda by everyone and through out his life. I've showed that using 'exact match' searches on few websites. Hence, my request would be, can we redirect Kriyananda to Swami Kriyananda, instead of the other way around? Red Rose 13, it certainly felt that you had a personal preference for just Kriyananda, because of the reason I stated while saying that. Yet, I sincerely apologize if it has caused you discomfort. I'm sorry. Bluesky whiteclouds (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I need to point out that 4 people said no for various reasons. It is my understanding that Dekimasu's job is to assess the consensus of the editors responding. If I am wrong, Dekimasu please correct me.Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 6 United States Capitol attack‎Edit

Not sure if formal discussions are required, but there are templates and categories which should probably be moved, per the recent rename of January 6 United States Capitol attack‎. Are you open to moving these or submitting rename requests? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Another Believer, I am happy to perform any moves that are blocked by move protection, but this is not an area in which I normally edit, so I would prefer to stay out of the decision-making process. For now, I will go ahead and move Template:2021 US Capitol attack and Template:2021 United States Capitol attack to Template:January 6 US Capitol attack and Template:January 6 United States Capitol attack, respectively. I hope someone else can work on the categories, but it might be better to wait before starting on that, since move requests on this page have been sent to WP:MRV before. If there are other templates that need adjusting, please let me know. Best, Dekimasuよ! 15:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Robert Honywood/HoneywoodEdit

FYI, I have added the Dictionary of National Biography as a source for Honywell (and his date of birth). Please see discussion at Talk:Robert Honeywood#Requested move 17 August 2022. Thanks. wjematherplease leave a message... 16:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Salit (disambiguation)Edit

It looks like mosdab was seriously undated recently. Thanks for pointing at it. Still, placing surname in "See aslo" is wrong. The policy says, in part, A list of name-holders can be included in a People section of the page, or alternatively in sections such as People with the surname Xxxx or People with the given name Xxxx below the main disambiguation list. Loew Galitz (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion review for President of JapanEdit

An editor has asked for a deletion review of President of Japan. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Privybst (talk) 05:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Link pipingEdit

The reason of those here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here is because of the redirect links so I have to fix them. That's the reason, so don't block me indefinite while I'm fixing it. Obrigado (Thank you). Wildlover22User talk:Wildlover22:WL22 27, September 2022 (UTC) Wildlover22 (talk) 04:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wildlover22, thank you for communicating with me politely on my talk page. You wrote, "because of the redirect links so I have to fix them. That's the reason, so don't block me indefinite while I'm fixing it." However, what I and other editors have been trying to explain to you is that links that redirects that get readers to the correct articles should not be "fixed". Wikipedia:Redirect says that Redirects aid navigation and searching by allowing a page to be reached under alternative titles and It is almost never helpful to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]]. This is an editing guideline on the English Wikipedia, which means all editors are expected to follow it in normal circumstances. I do appreciate your communication, but you still must stop editing links that are working redirects. Dekimasuよ! 04:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stop and how many times do I have to you? "DON'T BLOCK ME INDEFINITELY WHILE I'M FIXING IT!" Wildlover22 (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Translation request for Japanese Wikipedia: WiTricityEdit

Hello! On behalf of WiTricity and as part of my work at Beutler Ink, I've shared a draft entry for Japanese Wikipedia, which is a translated version of the English Wikipedia article. I'm searching for an editor who is willing to review this draft and update the entry appropriately. Might you be willing to take a look? Thanks for your consideration. Inkian Jason (talk) 18:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The draft has been reviewed and the entry has been updated. Inkian Jason (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The edit was reverted by someone who hasn't responded to my request for an explanation. Perhaps they do not understand I was given permission by implement the draft by another editor. Are you able to take a look at the draft, or are you aware of a place at Japanese Wikipedia for me to seek assistance? Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter messageEdit

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help with a particularly problematic userEdit

Thank you for your work in dealing with Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fuhitobe.

The editor in question for that has been active for nearly a year, consistently producing rubbish from multiple languages. From what I've observed, their MO appears to be 1) find an article on the JA, DE, ZH, and RU Wikipedias (and possibly others), run that through machine translation, and engage in some light copy-editing. I am a professional JA-EN translator, and I'm fluent enough in German to be able to assess their efforts in that language pair as well -- and it all shows a profound ignorance of the other languages, the translation / localization process in general, the subject matter of the articles themselves, and Wikipedia standards (particularly Wikipedia:Notability, with a side order of problems in understanding what adequate sourcing is).

I and other editors have tried advising them to change their approach, as documented in part at User_talk:Immanuelle/Archive_2#Dongyue_Dadi and User_talk:Immanuelle/Archive_3#Please_take_previous_comments_into_account, among other threads. Our entreaties have clearly fallen on deaf ears, as those threads concluded in August and September of last year, and the editor continues to create terribly incorrect content.

I spend most of my time helping to admin over at Wiktionary, where this user would have been blocked months ago for their persistence in adding misinformation. I am less familiar with procedure here at Wikipedia. What forum would be the appropriate place for nominating this user for intervention / censure? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eiríkr, I do agree with your assessment of the situation, and thank you for contacting me about this.
I began to work on this last week here, but have not had time to move forward and may not be able to for another few weeks. If you are worried about additional damage during that period, the next place to take this would be WP:ANI. I believe the editor is acting in good faith, but since there are a number of policy violations involved (WP:SOCK given the history of overlapping use of accounts, WP:C as noted in the deletion discussion—the history of that page still needs to be handled, and there may be many other copyright issues on other pages) as well as behavioral concerns (WP:CIR, particularly the part that requires "the ability to understand their own abilities and competencies, and avoid editing in areas where their lack of skill or knowledge causes them to create significant errors for others to clean up") and content concerns (WP:CITE, WP:F, etc.), that is likely enough for the community to reach a decision on how to proceed without worrying about the problem of whether there is a meaningful corpus of "reliable sources" in this area of Japanese prehistory. Still, I feel it would be better to establish community consensus here. I was treating this as a slow-moving problem since I have not brought my concerns to the editor directly, but as you note, others have raised the issue, and complaints were also made on the talk page of the previous account. By all means feel free to bring it up at WP:ANI and to reference my comments at the deletion discussion, the sockpuppet investigation, or here. Best, Dekimasuよ! 05:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, unfortunately I can only write a quick note here, but it may be worth raising that the editor has begun to react to objections to substandard content (like deletion nominations or draftification) by "merging and redirecting" the disputed content into other locations, as was done with Fuhitobe, Ichidaisotsu, and Girl Temple. There may be other examples of this since I only went back a few days. This is also problematic behavior that will require future cleanup, making the issue appear more severe. Dekimasuよ! 05:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I'd noticed that as well (multiple-redirecting and copy-pasting into other articles) -- worrying, as it partially hides the problem, and pollutes other articles that might not have had issues prior to the insertions.
Re: WP:SOCK, that is new to me (although I admit I may have forgotten something in the past several months). I had thought that these were two different people, but perhaps not...
Thank you for the link to the investigation page, I will have a look in the next couple days. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 05:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Eiríkr Útlendi, I saw your miscellany for deletion request. Looking at the stated use of AI (this time based on an English-language source) to generate a mishmash of inappropriate synthesis and improper paraphrasing—and the citations are not all correct, either—at Draft:Gehōbako, I think it's clear something needs to be done soon at a more general venue related to editor behavior. Dekimasuよ! 06:31, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the ping! Things IRL have gotten quite hectic for me (in the midst of a move), so my bandwidth is limited. I will help as and when I can, but it won't be speedy.  :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Eiríkr Útlendi, another editor has raised this now at WP:ANI#Need Japanese-speaking and maybe admin help, so I have added what I could there in a small amount of time. If you are available, that would be a good place to comment. Dekimasuよ! 05:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Immanuelle: does this look like a good idea?Edit

[3] Elinruby (talk) 06:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oops meant to show you this one: [4] Elinruby (talk) 06:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Eliruby, and thank you for the messages. I think it is likely that all or almost all of the redirects should be kept, but I would like to avoid any impression that I am hounding anyone, so in my case I am happy to let that discussion continue among editors who often participate at WP:RFD. Best, Dekimasuよ! 05:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok. I don't completely understand what they was doing, is why I asked. I bow to your judgement on the matter. Elinruby (talk) 05:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thank you for the advice on page move perm. I saw that you changed the title of an article mentioned at perms. I made some comments there about how I came to use the lowercase letter in "life" Still life: An Allegory of the Vanities of Human Life. Thank you. Bruxton (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doing more research, I think you are probably right, "Still Life: An Allegory of the Vanities of Human Life" I originally had it with upper case "Still Life" and it was changed to lowercase after a suggestion during the DYK nomination. There is a lot to know so I thank you for the help. Bruxton (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Bruxton, in case you hadn't seen it, I replied at WP:RFPPM. Best, Dekimasuよ! 05:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Daniel Jolliffe archived websiteEdit

Hello Dekimasu, Thank you for removing the spam site that replaced Jolliffe's expired website for his project One Free Minute which now directs to a casino. Jolliffe was an awesome Wikipedian, and I like to keep an eye on his biographic article. Re: his expired "Official Website" I found an archived version on the Wayback Machine and added it to the External links. But I'm not sure I did this correctly.

Two questions: 1) Is there a tool available that can help with adding archived links (I see this frequently in citations where the url expired)? 2) Can a link to the archived site also be in the infobox, or should that be deleted since it duplicates info? Netherzone (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Netherzone, there is some information on tools at Help:Using the Wayback Machine, and there should not be any issue with using an archive link in the external links section (although I would mark it as an archive). As far as the infobox goes, I am not aware of any rule but infobox editors tend to have very specific opinions, so you might be able to get suggestions at a page like Template talk:Infobox person. Personally, I do not think I would include a link to a non-live site in the infobox. Best, Dekimasuよ! 02:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, I'll follow your guidance on this. Netherzone (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Official name is GurugramEdit

Hi to whomsoever it may concern. We cannot retain former names of cities, the current name is Gurugram and not Gurgaon. Why do we need rfc ? it is common sense? If that is the case, then we should retain the city names Bombay and Madras. The advise received in preceding section is some editor's personal opinion. Personal opinions doesn't work in this case. News paper articles can write anything, they just take info from wikipedia, it is called mirroring of wikipedia. Coming to books and articles, there are still millions of articles calling cities as Bombay and Madras before their official name change. You cant take it as a standard, and forcefully rub your opinions on other editors. Your personal interest with Gurgaon instead of Gurugram cannot be endorsed by other editors. The Govt officially designated it as Gurugram city in (Gurugram District) - Fostera12 (talk) 14:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This post duplicates Talk:Gurgaon#Official name is Gurugram. – Uanfala (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I'll post my response there as well. Dekimasuよ! 16:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This seems to have been posted here because in one of the move requests that took place several years ago, I noted in response to a comment about Google Trends that "Gurgaon" remained more common than "Gurugram". That appears to remain the case. Fostera12, the current name of the article is not based upon my personal opinion or anyone else's, but rather upon Wikipedia policies like WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIAL, which on Wikipedia normally take precedence over names mandated by governments. Regarding the application of print sources, our standard is that we follow them rather than tell them what to write, and in the case of something like "Bombay", the change was performed due to a shift in usage after the name change per WP:NAMECHANGES. That shift has not been found here. If the common name changes then I will not take issue with any move request related to the article. Dekimasuよ! 16:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]