User talk:Jenks24/Archive 23
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | → | Archive 29 |
Am I going mad?
Hey dude, if you have some time, could you look at this AN discussion and tell me if I'm completely off my rocker? Further context is here. I had assumed it would be a simple request to ask the closer to re-open, but the level of push back I'm getting has me questioning my own sanity. If I'm off base, I'll drop it immediately.--Cúchullain t/c 15:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Well, the closer has apparently decided not to follow through with my request,[1] so escalation of some sort is necessary now. My request(s) are here with some discussion at Talk:Black Knight satellite conspiracy theory. I do not believe I've encountered a situation like this before in the many years I've been working at RM.--Cúchullain t/c 16:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I'm the best person to judge anyone's sanity at the moment (see above, both here and at AN)... But having said that, I think your request to undo the close and let the RM go the full week is reasonable. The whole point of SNOW is for discussions that no one is seriously going to object to, if someone does have a good faith objection then the full process should be followed. I'll leave a comment at AN, but I'll refrain from undoing the close myself lest we are accused of canvassing or the like. Jenks24 (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input, Jenks. It seemed reasonable to me, but then I thought I might be too vested in RM to see it clearly. But the whole thing has been pretty squirrely from the start.--Cúchullain t/c 17:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I'm the best person to judge anyone's sanity at the moment (see above, both here and at AN)... But having said that, I think your request to undo the close and let the RM go the full week is reasonable. The whole point of SNOW is for discussions that no one is seriously going to object to, if someone does have a good faith objection then the full process should be followed. I'll leave a comment at AN, but I'll refrain from undoing the close myself lest we are accused of canvassing or the like. Jenks24 (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – April 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).
Administrator changes
TheDJ
Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott
Guideline and policy news
- Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
- The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
- An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
- After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.
Technical news
- After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
- Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.
Hello, you deleted the Alex Merced article. Could you give me the source or export it so I could put it on the LP History wiki? My e-mail is andrewkolstee@gmail.com if you want to give an exported file. Thanks. 23:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMK152 (talk • contribs)
Drishyam Malayalam
Hi,
Please tell me the reason why you undo the changes I made yesterday.
Thanks, Sagar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagar.kottappuram777 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Sagar, sorry it's taken a little bit for me to get around to this. I wasn't actually the person who undid your changes but I think the reason they were undone was because you didn't explain in your edit summary why you were removing content here and "due to his date issue" isn't grammatically correct. Let me know if there's any way I can help you further. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 09:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Kremlin
There's now no page at talk:Kremlin, and I can't find the most recent related RM discussion. It's been that way for a few hours now. Can I help? Andrewa (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Andrewa: there's a discussion at Talk:Kremlin_(fortification)#Requested_move_2_March_2017. I personally think Moscow Kremlin should now be moved to Kremlin, since that's the common name, but that probably wasn't explicitly requested in the move. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, @Amakuru:. Agree. I've put a soft redirect at talk:Kremlin which would need to be deleted for that next move, but I don't think it's necessary to leave it as a redlink for an extended period. Andrewa (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- It was deliberate. A redlink with a log entry is actually easier to make sense of than having a talk page redirect point in a different direction to where its companion article-space redirect points, especially for less experienced users who often don't even know they've been redirected somewhere. It also has the added advantage, as you've noted, of not needing to be deleted for a future move – unfortunately, due to limitations in the software, talk pages are often left behind in such cases (see phab:T12814 for what would be a fix, but there's been no real movement for years). Jenks24 (talk) 10:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- I forgot to add that this is a standard practice I've seen from many admins, especially those who regularly make disambiguating moves. I was reminded to add this because just after writing my initial response, I saw on my watchlist that Talk:David Williams (footballer) – a redirect left behind from a dismabiguating move I made before I was an admin – was deleted today as G6. Jenks24 (talk) 10:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- We need to clear this up. Which clause exactly of wp:G6 do you think covers this? See also Wikipedia:Page mover#Redirect suppression criteria (and MediaWiki:Movepagetext with which I'm sure you're familiar, and which points admins to the page mover page). There is IMO no justification for suppressing or deleting these redirects. Andrewa (talk) 23:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, @Amakuru:. Agree. I've put a soft redirect at talk:Kremlin which would need to be deleted for that next move, but I don't think it's necessary to leave it as a redlink for an extended period. Andrewa (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Wow, see also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Possible improper use of page move redirect suppression. Amakuru, what with this and the New York/State/City fiasco, Talk:Jacques, Hereditary Prince of Monaco#Requested move 1 March 2017, WT:AT#Article names in other Wikipedias... we seem to have an epidemic of verbal diarrhoea, do you think it's chronic or acute, and either way, what's your prognosis? Andrewa (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Justification: G6 is for general maintenance and provides examples, not an exhaustive list. Have a peak at Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion every now and then to see plenty of examples of pages that don't meet one of the specific criteria listed at G6, but still get deleted anyway because it's common sense. I see you've badgered Talk:David Williams (footballer) into being recreated and I think it's less useful that it was as a redlink, no one can now see (if for example, they were coming from an old wikilink or a link from outside Wikipedia) that title used to be the talk page for Talk:David Williams (footballer, born 1988). I'm already aware of the rambling discussion at AN, having made a comment there several days ago... But I will be sure to also make a comment on your new section, too, when I get the chance. Jenks24 (talk) 04:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- I wan't wanting to badger anyone. Is this better?
- Yes, that it better, thanks. But the logs of a redlink tell exactly the same story (actually, they tell more because you can also see what the rationale was for moving the page). To do what you have done at David Williams for every single case like this – which happen fairly often – seems like a complete waste of time and a disincentive to the people who usually make these types of moves. Jenks24 (talk) 12:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't know why I get involved in these types of discussions. Always irritates and demoralises me, and I end up feeling apprehensive about logging onto Wikipedia rather than excited. My own fault though, hopefully one day I'll learn. Jenks24 (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Just happened by today to check in on your talk page... no particular reason. Upsetting to find this. Then I spent hours reading through all the now-archived discussions. I'm with you on this 100% and were I aware of it I would have backed you up at the time. I'm feeling irritated and demoralized myself; you have my sympathy. If it's any consolation, your position was eventually vindicated. Best, wbm1058 (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – May 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).
Administrator changes
- Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim
- Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight
Guideline and policy news
- An RfC has clarified that user categories should be emptied upon deletion, but redlinked user categories should not be removed if re-added by the user.
- Discussions are ongoing regarding proposed changes to the COI policy. Changes so far have included clarification that adding a link on a Wikipedia forum to a job posting is not a violation of the harassment policy.
Technical news
- You can now see a list of all autoblocks at Special:AutoblockList.
- There is a new tool for adding archives to dead links. Administrators are able to restrict other user's ability to use the tool, and have additional permissions when changing URL and domain data.
- Administrators, bureaucrats and stewards can now set an expiry date when granting user rights. (discuss, permalink)
Miscellaneous
- Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.
Administrators' newsletter – June 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).
Administrator changes
- Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn
- ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned
Guideline and policy news
- An RfC proposing an off-wiki LTA database has been closed. The proposal was broadly supported, with further discussion required regarding what to do with the existing LTA database and defining access requirements. Such a tool/database formed part of the Community health initiative's successful grant proposal.
- Some clarifications have been made to the community banning and unblocking policies that effectively sync them with current practice. Specifically, the community has reached a consensus that when blocking a user at WP:AN or WP:ANI, it is considered a "community sanction", and administrators cannot unblock unilaterally if the user has not successfully appealed the sanction to the community.
- An RfC regarding the bot policy has closed with changes to the section describing restrictions on cosmetic changes.
Technical news
- Users will soon be able to blacklist specific users from sending them notifications.
Miscellaneous
- Following the 2017 elections, the new members of the Board of Trustees include Raystorm, Pundit and Doc James. They will serve three-year terms.
Administrators' newsletter – July 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).
Administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- The RFC discussion regarding WP:OUTING and WMF essay about paid editing and outing (see more at the ArbCom noticeboard archives) is now archived. Milieus #3 and #4 received support; so did concrete proposal #1.
Technical news
- Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding
?fuzzy=1to the URL, as with Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term. - A new bot will automatically revision delete unused file versions from files in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old.
- Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding
Miscellaneous
- A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
- A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
- Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.
Precious two years!
 | |
| Two years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – August 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2017).
Administrator changes
- Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 (first RfA to reach WP:300)
- Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem
Guideline and policy news
- Following a series of discussions around new pages patrol, the WMF is helping implement a controlled autoconfirmed article creation trial as a research experiment, similar to the one proposed in 2011. You can learn more about the research plan at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial. The exact start date of the experiment has yet to be determined.
- A new speedy deletion criterion, regarding articles created as a result undisclosed paid editing, is currently being discussed (permalink).
- An RfC (permalink) is currently open that proposes expanding WP:G13 to include all drafts, even if they weren't submitted through Articles for Creation.
Technical news
- LoginNotify should soon be deployed to the English Wikipedia. This will notify users when there are suspicious login attempts on their account.
- The new version of XTools is nearing an official release. This suite of tools includes administrator statistics, an improved edit counter, among other tools that may benefit administrators. You can report issues on Phabricator and provide general feedback at mw:Talk:XTools.
Administrators' newsletter – September 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).
Administrator changes
- Nakon • Scott
- Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee
Guideline and policy news
- ACTRIAL, a research experiment that restricts article creation to autoconfirmed users, will begin on September 7. It will run for six months. You can learn more about the research specifics at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial, while Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial is probably the best venue for general discussion.
- Following an RfC, WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion now applies to any page in the draftspace that has not been edited in six months. There is a bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through articles for creation.
Technical news
- You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
- Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
- In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.
Arbitration
- Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.
Invitation to Admin confidence survey
Hello,
Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.
The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.
To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.
We really appreciate your input!
Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.
For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – October 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).
Administrator changes
- Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem
- Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box
Guideline and policy news
- Following a successful proposal to create it, a new user right called "edit filter helper" is now assignable and revocable by administrators. The right allows non-administrators to view the details of private edit filters, but not to edit them.
- Following a discussion about mass-application of ECP and how the need for logging and other details of an evolving consensus may have been missed by some administrators, a rough guide to extended confirmed protection has been written. This information page describes how the extended-confirmed aspects of the protection policy are currently being applied by administrators.
Technical news
- You can now search for IP ranges at Special:Contributions. Some log pages and Special:DeletedContributions are not yet supported. Wildcards (e.g. 192.168.0.*) are also not supported, but the popular contribsrange gadget will continue to work.
Arbitration
- Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
- A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
Mandela effect
Are you the admin who deleted the Mandela Effect article back in 2015?
I think the article should be brought back. Two years have passed and there are plenty of reliable sources now that talk about the Mandela effect. For example, The Telegraph in the below article defines it as "a conspiracy theory that argues we are living in an alternate reality". But on Wikipedia, Mandela effect just redirects to an article on false memories. Very misleading and confusing especially when the telegraph asks it's readers in a poll whether they believe in the Mandela effect. If wikipedia is correct then they are asking if we believe in false memories, but that is obviously not what the telegraph is asking. So wiikipedia needs the article back explaining what the Mandela effect means. Here is a link to the telegraph article but there are many other reliable sources available now:
Arnold1 (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Arnold1. Sorry it's taken me a few months to reply to this. Yes, I am the admin who deleted Mandela Effect as a result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mandela Effect. Although there was limited participation at the time the consensus was clearly to delete. That said, I actually do agree with you that it seems to be a notable topic now -- I can recall reading a couple of articles about it too. So, your options are to either be bold and create a new article on the topic yourself (simply go to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mandela_Effect&action=edit to get started editing). Or if you want to I can get a copy of the old article that was deleted for you to work at eg Draft:Mandela Effect. Let me know if you'd like me to do that or if there's anything else I can do to help. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 12:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello. You deleted Thirtysomething (disambiguation) as unnecessary. Then Thirty-something (disambiguation) is (re-?)created. Are the deleted revisions similar to that one? What can be done? --George Ho (talk) 04:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- Just noting that Anachronist has done a histmerge and George has now moved it to Thirtysomething (disambiguation). Thanks. Jenks24 (talk) 12:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
FIFA World Cup Play-offs
Hi thanks for the articles three years ago but could you do the following for me please:
- Move 2006 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC–CONCACAF play-off) to 2006 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONCACAF–AFC play-off)
- Move 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONCACAF–CONMEBOL play-off) to 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONMEBOL–CONCACAF play-off)
- Move 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC–CONMEBOL play-off) to 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONMEBOL–AFC play-off)
- Move 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification (OFC–CONMEBOL play-off) to 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONMEBOL–OFC play-off)
I would be gratefulMr Hall of England (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Mr Hall of England. Sorry it's taken a while to get back to you. I think I recall these types of moves, were they the ones at Talk:1986 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA–OFC play-off)? Can you just explain to me why I'd be doing these? Generally speaking I think we try and go in alphabetical order but that is not a hard and fast rule. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 12:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
- (WP:TALKSTALKer here) - That sounds right, unless there's a good reason not to do so (e.g. reliable sources always putting them one way round or the other). Given that convention, it seems like the first article of the aforementioned RM, 1986 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA–OFC play-off), is the only one that should be moved, to 1986 FIFA World Cup qualification (OFC–UEFA play-off). Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Problems at AfD
Hello Jenks. Good to hear from you again and hope you are okay. If you need any help with Richmond, etc. just let me know.
As you are an admin, could you please take a look at the AfD discussions concerning I. Kudigame, S. Dhanayake and Dinesh de Zoysa, all Sri Lankan players who have played a first-class match. There are concerns that what amounts to a deletionist clique has formed and is targeting cricket articles. As it is difficult to obtain information about Sri Lankan players, these are an "easy target" given the ambiguity of WP:N re its GNG section in particular. I have, however, raised a fresh argument today that WP:NEXIST applies because we had a test case two years ago when a contact in Sri Lanka went to a Sinhalese newspaper and checked the report of a player's "only match". In English sources, the player was only known by initial and surname (S. Perera). The Sinhalese report mentioned him making his debut and confirmed his first name, his age and his occupation (student). I can't say that such information would definitely be found about these three guys but the potential is there and there is no doubt that there is expansive Sinhalese media coverage of cricket.
Anyway, I don't know what you can add but several of us at present feel that WP:CRIN is under attack, for whatever purpose. All the best. Jack | talk page 13:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- I have to protest this. What administrator intervention is necessary here? Is anyone's behaviour at that AfD so poor that it requires an admin to step in? Beyond 'oh no, some people think differently to me, do something' that is. Even if there was, the correct place to get adminstrator attention would be WP:AN or WP:ANI. Approaching a fellow WP:CRIC member with this vague complaint looks to me like a thinly disguised attempt to obtain keep votes or a favourable close. Jenks24, I certainly hope and expect that, whatever your personal views on the suitability of this article might be, you'll stay impartial. Thanks. Reyk YO! 16:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- To hopefully allay some concerns, I was already aware of this. It would be hard to look at WT:CRIC at the moment to not realise what was going on, although I must admit I hadn't delved into it too much. I'm certainly not going to be closing any of the discussions unless they are near on unanimous, something that seems unlikely in the present climate. I can't say that I'm all that keen to go jumping into any of the discussions either, none of the people involved seem like they're getting much enjoyment out of it...
I was thinking about commenting on one of the threads at WT:CRIC when I did have a chance to get some thoughts together. My general opinion is that, like the last time this happened which I recall observing and maybe giving one or two small opinions on, it irritates me to see Sri Lankan cricketers from the '80s and '90s end up being the target for these sorts of deletions. As you (Jack) have noted, only a small percentage of what has been written in reliable sources about these sorts of players is available in English and online. It only contributes to our systematic bias to target these articles.
I am more sympathetic to, for example, the minor counties player I saw was at AfD who played one List A match. That is something we can actually work with – if no significant coverage of that guy can be found then it most likely does not exist. And if we see that happen for several cases where a player has only played one minor counties List A match then we can actually do something at CRIN to rectify this situation, eg you could say that five matches are needed at that level to assume notability (random number picked just make an example). That way we could get everyone on the same page about what the notability standards are and we wouldn't have people creating articles on topics that the guidelines say are notable and then justifiably getting a bit upset when they get deleted. To take a more extreme example, if people really feel that one first-class match is not enough for assumed notability you could reasonably easily do a quick survey of Australian and English cricketers in the last decade who made only one first-class appearance and see what sort of coverage they got because it's all in English and mostly online. Then if there's a consensus that's not enough we could look at adjusting our guidelines. AfDing Sri Lankan players from the '80s seems to me to be a completely backwards way to be going about it.
The-Pope was always someone who I agreed with on this sort of issue, and he expressed his thoughts far more cogently than myself – I just tend to ramble. Hopefully I'm not accused of canvassing by pinging him here. Jenks24 (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- To hopefully allay some concerns, I was already aware of this. It would be hard to look at WT:CRIC at the moment to not realise what was going on, although I must admit I hadn't delved into it too much. I'm certainly not going to be closing any of the discussions unless they are near on unanimous, something that seems unlikely in the present climate. I can't say that I'm all that keen to go jumping into any of the discussions either, none of the people involved seem like they're getting much enjoyment out of it...
The little prayers
Do we really have to move an article for such a minor thing the day it is on the Main page? Could have been tomorrow, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Gerda. This is probably a naive question, but what difference does it make? I definitely would have held off if I knew it would cause any issues. Sorry. Jenks24 (talk) 07:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- First, I would have liked to clean up after that move, but on DYK, hundreds of users link to the DYK articles, so I gave up. The other is page view stats. Normally, you look the next day, and the following. When moved, you look up both names, twice, and add four results. The DYK archive has now a different article name than the talk page DYK. - Sorry, I'm lazy. Can you make it a habit to look at articles still in the queues? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)