Archives

2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022

Hey, I was doing some cleanup of serial copyright violations and noticed that one of the articles they created Submission arts wrestling, was reviewed by you despite mostly consisting of copyright violating text from a cited website. Please be sure to use the copyright violations tool to check for copyright violations before approving new articles. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rosguill Are you referring to the tool that shows up as a link in the Page Curation dialog? I usually do check that if if shows up. If I missed it this time, apologize for the oversight and thanks for the trout. Bensci54 (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		For over 100 article reviews during 2022. Thank you for patrolling new pages and helping us out with the backlog! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Bensci54,

Backlog

The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.

2022 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!

Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)

New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js

Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.

Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.

Reminders

• Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Hi Bensci 54, May I ask you a question? In October '22 you suggested my article "Mozart Group" to be speedily deleted. Fortunately the article could be saved and it has since attracted numerous contributors. But now I run into the article Jowle, a village in Somalia. Problem is: this village does not exist. Satellite imagery does not show a single hut; it is not on a "UN Master Settlement List" with almost 10.000 Somali villages, etc. I contributed a lot on Somalia and believe me, I checked it thoroughly. But my question is: which deletion tag should I use? Loranchet (talk) 13:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There isn't a speedy deletion criteria for this sort of article. Therefore, if you think this article should be deleted, and that no one would disagree with that, you should use a PROD tag. Anyone who disagrees can show that they disagree by removing the tag. If no one removes the tag for a week, the article will be deleted. If you think that there is likely to be disagreement, or if you have attempted a PROD and someone contested it, you should take the article to AFD. Let me know if you have any further questions. Bensci54 (talk) 14:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Just letting you know I draftified this article which you had marked reviewed, as it had clear indications of UPE/COI editing.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Bensci 54. Thank you for your comment and vote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mie Television and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wakayama Telecasting Corporation. But for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Television Oita, I have some different opinions. Television Oita is one of three commercial terrestrial TV stations in Oita Prefecture, and also the member of JBA as well as Mie Television and Wakayama Telecasting Corporation. So I think the importance of Television Oita should be the same as the other two. Thank you.--Suicasmo (talk) 03:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Bensci 54,

I recently created an article on Wikipedia, but it appears that it may be at risk of deletion. I would greatly appreciate any feedback or suggestions you may have for improving the article and making it more positive and encyclopedic.

The article is about the Caawiye App, a community-based question-and-answer website and mobile application that has gained popularity among users in Somalia. I have included information on its features, history, and reception, as well as external sources to support the content.

I am open to any constructive criticism and would appreciate any help in improving the article. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best regards, Shahwah23 Shahwah23 (talk) 10:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Bensci54. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! TonyBallioni (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Page Patrol | May 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 May, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of redirects patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Article patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here! There is a possibility that the drive may not run if there are <20 registered participants. Participants will be notified if this is the case.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Received a message to delete the article I started recently.But I could not find the reason and notice on the article. Can you share the link to fix the problem Akbarali (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article has already been deleted, because it was unambiguously promotional. Bensci54 (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Bensci54,

Thanks for your notes on this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_(Lan_Samantha_Chang_short_story_collection)

I see that you designated it as an orphan page without related links, but it does have related links. May I ask why?

Thanks! LityNerdyNerd (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An orphan is where there are no other articles which link to the article in question, not the other way around. Bensci54 (talk) Bensci54 (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I was confused for a moment if the definition had changed. I just linked it. LityNerdyNerd (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Bensci54,

Backlog

Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.

Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.

Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.

You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.

Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).

Reminders

• Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord and #wikimedia-npp ^connect on IRC.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Hello Bensci54,

The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.

Reminders:

• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hiya. I'm not sure if you meant to mark this one as reviewed, but as it is wholly unsourced, I've tagged it unreviewed and moved it to Draft. Hope that's fine by you! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have removed the ((proposed deletion/dated)) tag from Azad Adhikar Sena, which you proposed for deletion. I found multiple news articles; I have posted links at Talk:Azad Adhikar Sena.. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add ((proposed deletion)) back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bensci54:

Dear Sir,

You said as regards the article on Azad Adhikar Sena as follows- "This page seems largely promotional, and of dubious notability, seeing as it isn't actually yet a registered party. (proposed by Bensci54)"

Meanwhile this objection seems to have been disagreed by 02 persons and the same message is not presently visible but I find it appropriate to present the facts that prima-facie establish that the page deserves to be there on Wikipedia, despite the party not having been registered with the Election Commission of India as yet. The reasons are as follows-

1. As per Indian laws, Registration of a political party is not mandatory for a party to work and exist. 2. Hence non-registration of a political party does not make it irrelevant and it can still exist and work. 3. Azad Adhikar Sena has already applied for registration which is in the process. 4. Even otherwise, the party is now working for around 01 year with full swing. 5. The number of activities quoted in the article make it clear that the party is not non-functional or non-existent but is very much there on ground. 6. The truth is that though the party is trans-national in its flavour and thinking but presently it is more visible and impactful in the state of Uttar Pradesh, where it is certainly making its impact felt. 7. The news articles attached along with the Wiki page also show that the party is spread in different parts of Uttar Pradesh. 8. This is the reason why majority of news articles are in Hindi language because Hindi is the predominant language of this State and not English. 8. There are many more news articles related with the Party that have not been attached. 9. The party is definitely working hard to work against injustice, atrocity and corruption and for the rights of common people, with all its earnest. 10. Hence the facts stated are not promotional in nature but only state the truth. 11. Again, almost every word is based on one or more reliable sources, as can be seen from the references.

In view of these facts, deleting this article would be prima-facie an injustice and impropriety in itself and the wiki page us needed in larger public interest.

~ Thanks and Regards Genuinewikiuser

New Page Patrol | October 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Articles will earn 3x as many points compared to redirects. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Bensci54,

Backlog update: At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!

October backlog elimination drive: A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.

PageTriage code upgrades: Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.

Notability tip: Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.

Reviewing tip: If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Bensci54:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over 1800 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for reviewing my article. I have a long experience with publishing articles on the Dutch Wikipedia, but this is my first article in English. Apparently not all rules are the same in both Wikipedias. Therefore, I have now removed all direct external references in this article. I hope that it now meets the standard in that respect and that you can remove the comment about external references. Thank you in advance. Luxil (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, thank you for acting as closer for this discussion. I'll note that both commenters expressed support for "Arena football" as the article title, the OP also endorsed it, and thus this should be seen as a consensus for the alternate move. 162 etc. (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, re-reading it, I now agree. I will move it. Bensci54 (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please move this article to Dany not Danny is his real names. Exactly Danny is common name but his birth name is Dany. Pfomma (talk) 03:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From other pages, it looks like you understand how to format an RM closure now per WP:RMCI, but your closure of Talk:In Search of...#Requested move 7 December 2023 is not formatted properly. Could you please redo that? (If you don't, I may reformat it myself.) Thanks for helping, by the way. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BarrelProof WP:RMCI doesn't require the full colored box formatting. It only lists it as an option. The only requirements are that the ((requested move/dated)) tag be removed and a comment explaining the closing added.

The full green box seems a little silly to me for an RM with no actual discussion... but it's no big deal to me either way. I'll put the box around it here later tonight. Bensci54 (talk) 23:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Perhaps a close readying says that, but I've always seen it with the shading and warning not to further edit. Otherwise, to me it looks a little "unfinished", and might invite further discussion. At first glance, the instructions say "While historically, there have been other options for formally closing the move request survey on the affected article's talk page, nowadays we exclusively use the twin templates". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BarrelProof Well, yes, but that's still in the section for formal closings. Above that, it says that closings can be either informal or formal. What I was intending to do was an informal close here. I feel like WP:RMCI could probably use some detail on when an informal close is appropriate, and if it is never appropriate, then the info on informal closings should be removed. But this isn't the place for that discussion. Maybe I will start a discussion on the talk page for WP:RMCI later. For now (or at least, by later tonight), I will formalize the one in question. Bensci54 (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It sounds like you've put a lot more thought into this than I had anticipated. I had assumed you were just someone who didn't clearly understand the convention. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Page Patrol | January 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 January 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		For over 100 article reviews during 2023. Well done! Keep up the good work and thank you! Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Bensci54. Could you please explain to me (since you did not in your closure) how it is that you found no consensus to move at Talk:Ferdinand VI of Spain? Surtsicna (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My original decision was based on that there were people on both the Support and Oppose sides that appeared to have policy backing them up, and there had been no discussion since Jan 3. However, looking at it again, taking into account what WP:NCROY actually says, I think it could be considered that there is consensus to move. WP:RMCI does say that policy has greater weight than !votes in a RM. I will update it to Moved. Thanks! Bensci54 (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the detailed explanation! Cheers, Surtsicna (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand that Wikipedia isn't a democracy. But, a majority of editors did oppose the 'page move'. That being said, I realize this 'purge' (via NCROY) of the suffix "of country", will continue forward until it's removed from as many monarch bios titles as possible. PS - One wonders. What's the point of opening up such RMs, if their outcome is basically (via NCROY) pre-determined. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, indeed. I am just trying my best to follow procedures here. WP:RMCI indeed indicates:

Any move request that is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guideline and policy, unless there is a very good reason to ignore rules, should be closed without moving regardless of how many of the participants support it.

So accordingly, I changed my closing to Move once I reviewed the convention at WP:NCROY. It does seem a bit like make-work that the RMs have to be created anyways, but per the instructions in WP:PCM, one of the criteria that prevents a bold move is "someone could reasonably disagree with the move," and clearly this is the case, given the large number of editors who always end up Opposing each of these moves. Bensci54 (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many years ago. I opposed the addition of diacritics to English Wikipedia (page titles, page content, templates, etc), but they're here & aren't going anywhere. So, that's basically (going forward) how I'll be viewing these 'monarch bio page name' RMs. It's too bad though, considering all the inconsistencies created, across many of these monarch bio page titles :( GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would aver that the recent change to NCROY does not have community consensus. It represents a local consensus. Also, it leads to absurdity. Now we have the utterly baffling combinatino of titles Ferdinand VI and Charles III, where the first is supposedly clear enough on its own but the primary topic for his successor's name + numeral is in fact a British king. Srnec (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The recent change to NCROY was the result of a two-month-long RfC discussion involving dozens of editors on the talk page of that guideline. The closing editor noted that there was "a strong consensus" for the change. That change was explicitly intended to bring the guideline in line with the article titling policy. Lots of things may be said about it, but "local consensus" is rather misleading. Surtsicna (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Srnec: the recent RM result at Frederick IX of Denmark (sorry make that 'now' Frederik IX of Denmark), is yet another growing trend (this time) towards monarch page names being de-englished (examples: William I, German Emperor, Frederick III, German Emperor, yet Wilhelm II), in recent years. PS - I'm quite certain, shortly another RM will be opened there to have "of Denmark" dropped. Anyways, the continuing push for non-english names & the purging of the suffix "of country" from these monarch bio pages, shows no sign of stopping. GoodDay (talk) 09:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Community consensus was clearly against this move. This is not a common clear unambiguous name, as pointed out repeatedly in the comments to allow you to override it. You are not obliged to find consensus not to move. If it is unclear to you, then "no consensus", and the page remains at its most stable title, which would be "Ferdinand VI of Spain", where it has been for the past twenty years. On what basis did you override it and discover consensus to move? Walrasiad (talk) 09:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the basis that none of the opposers cited any guidelines or policies or proved any ambiguity while the supporters cited both the article titling policy and the relevant naming convention. It is explained in the closing comment. Surtsicna (talk) 10:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, Surtsicna is correct. As I noted above WP:RMCI indicates clearly that naming conventions take precedence over the quantity of !votes in an RM. WP:NCROY likewise clearly indicates that the natural disambiguator "of country" should only be used if needed to disambiguate, otherwise it should be dropped. Bensci54 (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Potential ambiguity was emphasized, the overwhelming majority opposed the move. If nothing else, WP:IAR would apply. And you're misreading the RCMI instructions. Read them again. It explicitly states that it is "move request" that must not conflict with policy, not opposition to it. Read the RMCI instructions carefully "unless there is a very good reason to ignore rules, should be closed without moving regardless of how many of the participants support it." Notice that it doesn't say it should be closed and moved. The fact that this page has been stable for twenty years, and this RM generated a great majority of opposition to it being moved, suggests that represents consensus of wider community. The default position in the closing instructions is to not move. Walrasiad (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At this point, Surtsicna & Beкочeл (between them) must have opened over 200+ RMs in the last two months alone, with a majority of them resulting in delete "of country". Frustrating it may be, but that's the way the winds are blowing. At such a large scale, it's highly unlikely that any of those monarch bio pages, will ever return to having "of country" in their titles. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hm, I suppose you are right. But, at this point, I've already revised my closing once. I don't really want to do it again. If it is a concern perhaps it can be taken to MR? Either way I will avoid closing any more of these types of RMs. Bensci54 (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Walrasiad is not right. "Potential ambiguity" argument is making a mockery of the process. If there ever was another Ferdinand VI in history, the opposing editors would have named him. But there was not. Further, any move request that is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guideline and policy, unless there is a very good reason to ignore rules, should be closed without moving regardless of how many of the participants support it. The move request you closed is in keeping with naming conventions and policy. Walrasiad and other opposing editors did not cite a single guideline or policy in the discussion. Those who supported it cited guidelines and policy. Walrasiad's suggestion that you ignored rules when closing the discussion is heinous. Surtsicna (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, I took their reference to WP:IAR as saying I ought to have ignored all rules to close as not moving. They did correctly point out that the text you've made green above refers to the inverse situation, where a page is already at the correct name but there is a proposal to move it off, and doesn't necessarily apply in this situation. Bensci54 (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That said, I do still think a Move close was correct, because in general WP:RMCI indicates that arguments with policy behind them hold more weight in determining consensus than those that do not, and as you've pointed out and I agree with, none of those who opposed had policy-based arguments. Bensci54 (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is definitely asymmetric. The purpose of the green text is to impose the obligation on the closer to ascertain first whether a move request is possible (that is, not conflicting with policy). Just because a move can be made, doesn't mean it must be made. That's why RMs exist. To determine whether a title change is wanted by the community or not. And in this case, clearly not. Walrasiad (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, RMs exist to determine whether a title change is needed to bring the title in line with Wikipedia's guideline and policies. That is why we do not vote but present arguments. Your arguments did not cut it. "Potential ambiguity". Surtsicna (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has asked for a Move review of Ferdinand VI of Spain. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review.

Sorry, I carried out the move request right before I saw your comment. I'll put it back if you have any objections. It looked ok to me. Station1 (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see someone else has already reverted. There's an RM on the talk page, in case you want to comment there. Station1 (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You don’t think contradicting CONCISE and causing untold ambiguity and confusion is good enough reason to IAR a guideline? Wow. What would be good enough? — В²C ☎ 21:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the "unless there is a very good reason to ignore all rules" exception listed in the guideline is for cases where the rules clearly produce an incorrect name for a specific case, in such a way that the rules did not anticipate for. In this case, you did not present any arguments as to why this specific case ought to be an exception to the rule, but rather only voiced general disagreement with the guideline itself. The correct venue to voice such concerns would be at the talk page for the guideline, rather than at an individual RM. You made the point at the RM that guidelines follow consensus, not the other way around. I agree that this is correct. However, I disagree that an RM is the correct venue for such consensus-forming. Indeed the consensus at WP:RMCI is, as I've mentioned, that policy/guidelines should weigh very heavily in determining a closing, to the point of even overriding !votes, if said !votes are not in line with the guideline/policy. If someone starts an RfC or similar discussion on the WP:USPLACE talk page and a consensus manages to form to drop the state name from US cities when not necessary as a disambiguator, then this RM could be re-opened and would have a greater chance of passing. By the way, I fail to see how Virginia Beach, Virginia presents any more ambiguity and confusion as opposed to Virginia Beach. If anything Virginia Beach is more ambiguous. There is a decent argument to be made concerning WP:CONCISE, but again that argument really should be had at the talk page for WP:USPLACE. Bensci54 (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, you can’t change the guideline first. That’s not how WP works, which I explained here (and also linked in the RM). The only way naming guidelines change are by showing (usually IAR-based) consensus decisions contrary to the guideline manifested at individual RMs. The confusion created by unnecessarily disambiguated US city titles is the conveyance of the general acceptance of unnecessarily disambiguated titles, which isn’t the case for any other articles. В²C ☎ 12:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is definitely possible to hold an RfC on the talk page of a long-standing guideline, discuss how said guideline violates WP:CONCISE, determine if the community agrees, and then if a new consensus forms, have the guideline changed accordingly. I know this is possible because it has just recently occurred on the talk page for WP:NCROY where the long-standing mandatory pre-emptive disambiguation format of "(name) (ordinal) of (country)" on rulers who are not household names was determined to be in violation of WP:CONCISE and the guideline changed accordingly to remove the "of (country)" unless needed for disambiguation. I see no reason why a similar discussion would not be possible on the talk page for WP:USPLACE. Bensci54 (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course it's possible to hold such an RfC and it some rare cases it may garner consensus, but my point is that one's case is much stronger if they can show some precedent consistent with the proposal. Denying the ability to set such precedents creates an unfair bias favoring the status quo. --В²C ☎ 22:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Bensci54. Thanks for closing the RM discussion at Talk:Surtees Racing Organisation#Requested_move_4_February_2024. I was just wondering - are you planning to update all the links to Surtees to link to Surtees Racing Organisation instead? DH85868993 (talk) 05:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DH85868993 Yes, I can. Not today, though. Maybe tomorrow; I'll work on it in around 12 hours, probably. Bensci54 (talk) 06:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cool. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 06:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Between us, SSSB, Onel5969 and I have updated all the necessary links. DH85868993 (talk) 09:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! Bensci54 (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]