This page 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.

You just closed this nomination and it's already been renominated by the same nominator in contempt of your closure and consensus. We need an administrator to deal with this disruptive nomination. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, Ribbet32. I've closed the second discussion and added a lengthy summary.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I dispute this close. I would like to query under what grounds it has been made. AusLondonder (talk) 04:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

How does the current title "better suit the spirit of WP:NC-GAL" when WP:NC-GAL states "For future elections of uncertain date, use a form similar to Next Irish general election"? AusLondonder (talk) 04:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I gave a lengthy explanation of the close. In the two discussions, several editors made several compelling arguments against the proposal, arguing for the present wording as more common, more precise, and more in line with how other articles on Canadian federal elections have been handled. It's also not so dissimilar to "Next Irish general election" that it's can't pass as "a form similar to" that phrasing. This is what I mean by "the spirit of WP:NC-GAL and the practice at related articles (ie, previous Canadian elections)".--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:PRECISION states "Exceptions to the precision criterion may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria". Canadian federal election, 2015 is the title not 42nd Canadian federal election. This was a procedurally flawed joke of a debate. However, what I do dispute is the speedy close and I again ask what criteria or policy that was done under. AusLondonder (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I explained why I closed the discussion abruptly in my summary: "There's no hard-and-fast rule about when a new RM can be started, but in general it's best to wait a fair period of time, or until some new development occurs. Clearly, the various commenters below feel this request is too soon and unproductive." What I didn't say was that participants reasonably felt the RM was disruptive, and that isn't acceptable even if you think your interpretation of the naming convention is correct.

The appropriate vehicle for challenging an RM close is not to start another RM, but discuss with the closer. If you're not satisfied, as I said in my close, move review is an option. Another would be waiting for a period of time - there's no set rule, but usually a few months is good - and opening a fresh RM.--Cúchullain ^t/c 05:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a Move review of 43rd Canadian federal election. 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. AusLondonder (talk) 05:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cuchullain, your move was totally unnecessary and disruptive. There are four American whaleships named Essex in the American National Maritime Digital Library's database. I don't have all my files at hand so I can't look up how many English whaleships were named Essex. Your move impeded anyone from creating a disambig page listing all the whaleships by that name, or later producing an article on one of them. It is just poor form to make a specific name a generic name. Acad Ronin (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Acad Ronin: I certainly didn't mean to upset you, and I can't see how the move could be "disruptive". Per WP:DAB, we disambiguate topics that are covered by Wikipedia, not all topics that exist. There were no other articles on whaleships named "Essex", and Essex (whaleship) still redirected to the article, meaning anyone who typed in or clicked on that phrase would be coming here regardless. There can't be a dab page until there are other articles to disambiguate from, otherwise we're just throwing roadblocks in readers' way.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Williston station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Great Northern Railway. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

There is a policy discussion in progress at the Manual of Style which affects the capitalization of Fly Like an Eagle, a question in which you previously participated. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — LlywelynII 16:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Would you be kind enough to correct the citation error in Mar Thoma Syrian Church

The Mar Thoma Syrian Church or Mar Thoma Church is a Christian denomination based in the state of Kerala, India. Its members are part of the one of the Saint Thomas Christian community, which traces its origins to the missionary activity of Thomas the Apostle in the 1st century.Gregorios, Paulos; Roberson, Ronald G. (2008). "Syrian Orthodox Churches in India". In Fahlbusch, Erwin; Lochman, Jan Milič; Mbiti, John; Pelikan, Jaroslav; Vischer, Lukas. The Encyclopedia of Christianity 5. William B. Eerdmans Publishing. pp. 285–286. ISBN 0-8028-2417-X. Retrieved March 29, 2010.

Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.213.22.201 (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Can you help with Fasts, Lents and Festivals of Marthoma Church, it seems having issues with formatting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.1.201.190 (talk) 08:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Iron Munro, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pulp fiction. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I would like to contest the move. As one of the main editors of the original page I did not see the request. (My fault of course) I apologize that I did not previously see this move request. This move request discussion did not incorporate prior move discussions regarding the title of the page. The page discusses a culture group. The culture group incorporates multiple geographic regions and multiple dialects of a single language. The most comprehensive of the culture group. As you can see with this ngram analysis (https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Tigrinya+people%2CTigrayan+people&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CTigrayan%20people%3B%2Cc0) Tigrinya is more common than Tigrayan people or Tigray people. Reading the previous discussion it is clear that "Tigrayan" only refers to a person from Tigray who as a set have a distinct history from the set beyond Tigray (e.g. in Eritrea). If this move is not made, to prevent confusion with a substantial subset of Tigrinya people, a new page should be started. Merhawie (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Merhawie: Well, someone has opened a new RM already, so it's too late to revisit the previous discussion. My recommendation would be to participate in the new RM and make the case for a new name there. It does appear that the previous hyphenated name is uncommon, however.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I was the user who opened up the RM, however it was only done because Cúchullain rejected my objection to the move and insisted that I open up a new RM. If it helps I fully support contesting the initial move. Mesfin (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Mesfin, what I did was revert your unilateral move that came immediately after the move discussion. You didn't broach the subject with me or on the talk page prior to starting the new RM. what I'd suggest at this point is that you close the RM, determine what the most common name is in the sources (clearly the hyphenated name is not common), and make your case in a new RM.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

1) At no time did I edit the page nor did I move anything in the last few years; it is clear that you are referring to another. 2) Yes, I did broach the subject with you on the talk page (prior to starting the new RM). My objection was dismissed and I was told to create a new consensus, thus the following RM. Mesfin (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

My apologies, yes, I mistook you for the editor who moved the page after the RM. things get hard to stay on top of when this happens. However, there does need to be a new consensus as the last one was fairly clear against the hyphenated title. It appears that Merhawie has a different suggestion entirely. I recommend coming together and figuring out which of the options is really most commonly used in the sources before proceeding.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Looking for an admin on duty: if you could stop by here and hand out some indefinite blocks, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Quis separabit? 17:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, taken care of already. Thanks anyway. Quis separabit? 17:56, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

glad to hear it. Sorry, I haven't been near my computer much today.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited San Joaquin Street station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bakersfield station. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for closing this one. The photographer was clearly not the primarytopic of "Harry Callahan". As for the character article, though, would you explain how you found no consensus? Looks to me like there were four people explicitly in favor of that half of the RM, two or three neutral, and only one (In ictu) explicitly opposed. The IP really only seemed opposed to the photographer half of the RM ("Even if you move the character..."), and one of the neutrals was open to the character article move ("I see the logic"). Thanks for your response. Dohn joe (talk) 16:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

On review I've changed that part of it to "move". It does appear that there was little actual opposition, and a fair amount of support. Thanks for the comment.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Dohn joe (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Since you participated in a recently closed (no consensus) move discussion for Real Robot, I’m just notifying you of an RFC on that title. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Cuchullain, could you keep in mind to clean up the links when you're moving pages, e.g. as for Lodi Railway Station. Thanks, --Midas02 (talk) 06:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I tried to get as many as I could but most incoming links were tied to templates that had in fact been updated. I've moved several more this morning; those that are still showing up seem to be template links, which are beyond my ability to fix.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

[1] --Midas02 (talk) 03:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Great, thanks, Midas02.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cuchllain, thank you for correcting the name at Subbotniks. I have recently become interested in the topic because it seems there are some mis-categorizations on wikipedia. As you noted in your recent etids there, Subbotniki is nothing but the Russian word for Sabbatarian Christians and I have discovered that most commonly when I ask a Russian about Subbotniks they consider one is talking about Seventh Day Adventists. Russian Subbotnik is the term one needs to clarify when one is not talking about any other Sabbatarian group but specifically the Subbatarians which evolved from Russia's native Molokan Spiritual Christianity otherwise known as Karaite-Subbotniks. Reading through the works of A. Lvov and Velvl Chernin I have discovered that until the 1800s there were no Talmudist Sabbatarians in Russia but that after Catherine the Great annexed lands where there were large numbers of Jews living, some groups of Sabbatarians in Russia began to be interested in the Talmud and eventually evolved into a group called Subbotnik Gers (converts) who until relatively recently were not considered to be real Jews by the majority of Jewish communities. The Subbotnik article still needs therefore a lot of disambiguation to sort out which groups are being referred to. Would you be interested in working with me to help disambiguate that page? YuHuw (talk) 10:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look, but I really don't know much about the subject. I wouldn't want to change links to wrong articles.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

When shall I re-propose the move? --George Ho (talk) 06:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Under Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves#Default_moratoria_on_repeat_RMs, I think the default answer is six months.

Personally, George, I have come close to commenting, but I think the phrasing is interchangeably

"It's the (End of the World) as We Know It" &

"It's the End of the (World as We Know It)"

and the classification of the word "as" is different in the two. i.e. It is a question without a defined answer. I think there is a defined class of such questions? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

George Ho, you should wait at least several months before opening a new RM, especially if you're just going to propose the same thing. It sounded like there was a lack of agreement about what the MOS really recommends.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the A Misfortune page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I've cleaned up some more of your edits to dab pages. Rather that go through everything, please just look back at the changes (and of course, please correct any errors I or others have made). A few points:

• Don't forget the piping per MOS:DABPIPING (you neglected it at Alesta[2])
• Make sure to put entries in a sensible order per MOS:DABORDER. In general, topics with clarifiers in parentheses go first, followed by clarifiers with commas (ie place names), articles with the item as part of the name, and finally synonyms. Within groups stick to some order (importance, alphabetical, chronological, etc).
• Again, for blue links within the explanatory text instead of the entry name, pipe and format as you would in an article. For example, ""Villain", a 2005 song by Hedley from Hedley" rather than """Villain", a song by Hedley from Hedley (album)."
• Per WP:DABENTRY, entries should be in the form of a sentence fragment - so for instance, "Lush Life, a 2000 album by Bowery Electric" rather than "Lush Life, album by Bowery Electric 2000" (though for whatever reason, we don't include "a" or "an" for people per MOS:DABPEOPLE).--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for this, I will check on your Talk page for further encouragement and support. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, on this RM, you closed it saying "the only thing clear is that there's no consensus for the move at this time". However, employing a simple vote count, I see three clear supports (including the nominator) for the move (disregarding differences in case), and just one clear oppose. The other oppose is objecting mainly to the use of title case, without expressing a definitive opinion as to whether the move itself (if it were made to sentence case) is justified. By that token, it is certainly not clear that there is no consensus, and I think a more thorough examination of the arguments is required. The current title is not commonly used anywhere, whereas the proposed one is quite commonly used, and has the support of the majority of the discussion. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't really have anything else to add, but I'll reopen the RM.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Hey Cuchullain, I object to this reopen. Users have already weighed in during a more than reasonable (in fact, an extremely lengthy open) period and there was ample time for "questions" from the date of the user-in-question's "oppose" vote way back on February 1 - over 2 months ago! Yet suddenly now there's a question? What's more, if we're now analyzing and parsing votes, one vote was simply the word "Agree," with no further commentary. Hardly as "clear" a vote as it's been characterized. In fact, the nominator never even weighed in to discuss/defend their motion once the debate began. But one vote was "strongly disagree" while the other was "Oppose current proposal." Both can only be interpreted as clear opposition. In fact, the user who requested this reopen has yet to even address my answer - made on March 2 - to their comment referencing me on March 1. But the bottomline remains unchanged: No broad-based support or even consensus for this proposal was established. You said so yourself, when you correctly noted: "the only thing clear is that there's no consensus for the move at this time." So I really object to this after-the-fact attempt at votestacking, long after the game has already been called for lack of interest. The time for questions was long - and long ago - and has long since passed. No explanation has even been offered for why any follow-up question wasn't asked on a timely basis. For two months! Please re-close this and leave it closed. Users are free to reopen at any time - but there's absolutely no legitimate basis for resurrecting this now. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Lol. Well as I say, I don't really have anything more to add on this one, so if some participants were unhappy with my initial close, I'm going to leave it to another admin to sort out.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Hey Cúchullain, it's like you're Switzerland!:) Now you're leaving it to someone else and after all this time? Well, many thanks for trying. (But just so you know... your instincts were right the first time!) Regards, my friend. X4n6 (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

You know if you'd looked at what links there you'd have seen incoming links from a Yemen conflict template. So https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haiz&type=revision&diff=713715698&oldid=713694299 this edit is not going to helpful. Frankly I think you're overstepping the boundaries a bit. Rather than recognize that an EP is not the natural meaning of Haiz and that some work needed to be done, you're zooming in on niggles. And it's beginning to be a little aggressive. If you want me to disappear from Wikipedia and never come back, then fine. I can do that. But if I stay you have to have a bit more perspective. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

In ictu oculi: First, let me apologize if my edits come across as aggressive. My only intention here is to clean up disambiguation, which is something I've been involved with for years, as you know. But I don't see any problems with that edit in particular. It was mostly formatting, removing unnecessary verbiage, and removing an entry that isn't covered anywhere on Wikipedia. I didn't change anything else with the EP.

And no, I certainly don't want you to disappear from Wikipedia. I've only been focusing on your edits recently because I'm seeing a lot recurring problems across an apparently wide scale. I'm not bringing these things up just to come down on you; the fact is that these errors make things unclear and inconsistent for readers, and create a lot of work for other editors to clean up after. Again, I don't mean to criticize, but it's getting a bit frustrating to see. These aren't niggles, they're basics of MOS:DAB and the disambiguation guidelines, and you simply make too many edits to the dab page not to follow them.

I consider you a highly valuable editor. My suggestion would be to slow down on your dab edits to make sure you're following the guidelines. There are also plenty of other areas that need improvement on Wikipedia.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alien Nation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crossover. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lamar station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Garden City station. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Leavenworth, WA (LWA) is only locally known as Icicle station. It's known as Leavenworth, WA Everett, WA (EVR) Wenatchee, WA (WEN) ...all stations in Washington are named after their town, not some local invention. The only exception is Seattle - King Street Station, WA (SEA) is known as Seattle King Street Station. This is to prevent confusion with other stations in the Seattle metro area such as Seattle Union Station (SUS) or Tukwila (TUK).

It's the Icicle resort's attempt to re-name the station, not Amtrak. Please do not confuse potential riders.

Source: ^[1]

Please revert your name change.  kgrr ^talk 16:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

kgrr: I moved the article because another editor, Secondarywaltz, expressed that "Icicle Station" is the WP:COMMONNAME in the sources (here). This seemed to be backed up with my own cursory look; even Amtrak's Great American Stations site (which includes the entry under "Leavenworth, WA") refers to it in the text as "Icicle Station". If we're to move it, we need more evidence of what the common name is, as that's what we go by.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Cuchullain:Common. I took the picture for this article and started the article as "Icicle Station" and was quickly corrected. Check the history of the changes that were made. The reasoning in the history back in 2009.

The article in Amtrak's Great American Stations site entry under "Leavenworth, WA (LWA)", not "Icicle Station".^[2] Icicle Station is NOT the official name, but a secondary nickname. If you go to an Amtrak website, try looking up "Icicle Station". You won't find anything. If you buy a ticket to go to Leavenworth, the ticket will say "LEA" on it, not "Icicle Station". It's the same for Wenatchee (Columbia Station), Lacy (Centennial), etc. Go to an Amtrak station and try to buy tickets to the Big Apple. They will say - so you mean New York City, Penn Station (NYP)?

Please cite only credible references, not some marketing brochure. Please revert the article back to Leavenworth (LEA) despite what the Icicle corporation wants you to change it to.  kgrr ^talk 05:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I would like to query why you deleted my edit. All information was from a cited primary source, there were no weasel words and everything stated was factually correct. It did not contravene the Wikipedia guidelines because no analysis was provided. The figures from a primary source were simply reported.

Barackaddict (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Barackaddict: I see several editors have already responded at the talk page. I'll respond there as well.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a Move review of Crossover in fiction. 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. --BDD (talk) 13:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I know you don't want to here from me, but dab page edits like these are very much a problem. I've asked you before to follow the formatting of the guideline, stop adding entries that aren't covered anywhere on the encyclopedia, etc. I don't like being heavy handed, but you're creating a lot of work for yourself and even more for others. If you can't get the swing of editing dab pages, please just hold back on editing them until you can.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Hear not here. I was expanding a dab page. Your objection is that I hadn't completed it by checking every single reference was mentioned. Wikipedia is a work in progress and has a massive bias to WP:RECENT trivia. I was trying to address that. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

You have some point. Ideally I would have gone on to add the mentions to the articles. But as before I think your belief that songwriters must not be mentioned doesn't help disambiguating songs recorded by multiple artists. But you're the boss. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not the "boss". Your edits there just introduced a lot of problems that weren't there before: unclear descriptors, multiple blue links in entries, a substantial number of entries that aren't covered anywhere, etc. And they happened after I'd already brought up these issues with you several times.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Next time as you're following me around ping here on or on the talk page of the dab. Okay? In ictu oculi (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

In ictu oculi: First off, I'm not "following you around". Now, I can start pinging you at the dab pages if you want, but I'm not about to maintain a section of my talk page for addressing problems with your edits. The logical place for that is your page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

If you have issues with an article, the place is the talk page of the article. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

In ictu oculi: Some of the issue is that the problems go across many pages. But whatever will get the point across.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

In ictu oculi: I want to apologize for the tone of my comments above. I was merely frustrated and came across a lot more harshly than I intended. I'm sorry.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Niagara Falls station (New York), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Empire Service. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I recently decided to get into helping clear out some of the backlog of RM's and have run into some disputes. I recently had a chat with you on my talk page, and was recently asked, again, by another editor, to reopen another unrelated RM that you had previously been involved in. Are these pleas for reopenings common? Or am I doing something wrong? As the closing instructions and WP:CONSENSUS make clear I have been trying to base the close decisions on the strength of the arguments, rather than purely on !vote counting. I am fine with second guessing myself and reconsidering a decision, but should I just leave this to admins instead? There aren't that many admins, and I'm just trying to help deal with some of the bureaucratic stuff to free up some of your guy's time. Any advice or insight would be welcome. Thanks. InsertCleverPhraseHere  01:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere: Let me start by saying that you're doing a fine job. You're showing good judgement, good knowledge of the policies, and you explain your decision making very well. Certainly don't stop on those grounds!

I'd say that it's somewhat common to get questions about closes. Some topics and participants more than others, as you're discovering. You may also get it a bit more for being a non-admin closer; editors typically want close or controversial moves done by admins. It's not totally fair - there's nothing about having access to the block and delete buttons that directly improves your judgement on RM closings - but it's really a matter that people with the bit are expected to be knowledgeable with the policies on a level other editors aren't, at least as a Platonic ideal. Don't get discouraged, and don't take it personally.

I do think you made the wrong call at Muscat, but of course I supported the move. I don't see anything out of bounds with the self-balancing scooter move other than the discussion may have been a bit contentious (if only due to a few participants). At the same time, admins (myself included) weren't exactly jumping in to take care of it. In general your approach - to weigh arguments, not count votes - is spot on. My only advice would be not to worry about the potentially controversial moves for now, try to keep an open mind when people have comments about a close, and be willing to reverse yourself or even just relist. Otherwise, you've already got everything key the process needs, and your efforts have been invaluable in handling the perennial backlog. I speak for many when I say your work is appreciated.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, gives me a lot more clarity and I appreciate the time you took to write the above reply. Cheers mate.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  05:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

In fact, have a barnstar.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  05:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

		The Guidance Barnstar
		For taking the time to give me very valuable advice on closing move discussions.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  05:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I'm glad the advice was useful to you.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a Move review of Self-balancing scooter. 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.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  08:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

What is missing from the talk page in the of the article is that, given "esports" a proper english word via Dictionary.com, it was already renamed from "marketing speak" to the proper spelling a while back. Then a group names "the eSports task force" changed it to fit their agenda. As you can see from the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/eSports, most of the articles have proper spelling. This is also spelled correctly on DailyDot and ESPN. Given all of that data, I feel a consensus has been reached. They have not commented on any requests on the move there and this article is in violation of WP:COMMONNAME.

I don't want to get into an edit war over this so I thought I'd reach out and see any additional reluctance you have towards this change.

Thanks for your time

Entropyfails (talk) 01:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Entropyfails. As I said here, the issue is that the article has been through two formal requested move discussions, the last of which moved it away from Esports to ESports in a unanimous decision. As such, that's the standing consensus, and the article shouldn't be moved again without a new one. Feel free to start a new requested move if you want, but make sure to include evidence that "Esports" is the more common name in reliable sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't forget to update Template:MDOT stations after you have renamed all of the stations. Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and Template:Detroit People Mover route diagram too. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Secondarywaltz:I fixed the links in the route diagram, but I can't figure out the MDOT template, and don't want to make it worse by messing with it. At any rate, the links all seem to be redirecting to the correct target.

On another note, could you check out Template:Amtrak stations for the Montana stations? Some point to wrong locations but it looks correct in the template itself.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The Template:MDOT stations fits the same purpose as Template:Amtrak stations, but now I see what the problem is. If you had moved all the other stations affected to the same naming convention, it would have been easier to fix. But you have disrupted that. The QLINE (formerly M-1 Rail Line) stations need to move as well. Secondarywaltz (talk) 13:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I see they're on the move. I'll fix that template once you get finished. Thanks. Secondarywaltz (talk) 13:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Secondarywaltz: They should all be done now. Thanks,--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Done! Now, I'm going to leave the whole M-1 Rail/QLINE mess for somebody else to clean up. I might get there eventually but I just don't have time right now. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• - - and now Template:VREX stations. Please check that I have made all the appropriate amendements. Why do you not do that? Secondarywaltz (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

For one thing, I didn't notice the template, and for another, I wasn't able to get through all the Virginia stations before getting called away. The redirects seemed to be working fine either way.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

You know that if the s-line succession template is used there is always a matching station template. You change the Amtrak one all the time but just seem to ignore all others. Do you not know why you do that? Secondarywaltz (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know (or care, really) about all the templates. I change the Amtrak one because you asked me to do it. It's also the same for every state so I don't have to go searching for it (these templates, and the method to fix them, are NOT intuitive even to people well versed in the markup). I never understood why it matters, since the redirects go to the correct locations anyway. It seems like it'd be simpler to fix the base template in accordance with the guidelines, rather than making changes to every template for every station.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow! Not every template, just the one that affects the default naming convention, which is what you are changing. That is the relevance of this one. If you don't care, why are you moving those articles? Secondarywaltz (talk) 13:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I care about the articles, hence why I'm moving them and making an effort to clean them up. Ideally templates are just there to serve the articles. It does seem that it would be more worth our while to update the default naming conventions, rather than making individual patches for every station, since the conventions have changed.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Let me try again. When you update that one template, you are "updating the default naming convention" in one place. Just that one template is the final part of the process. You don't need to edit any of the articles. There are no patches. You only changed the article names and do not contributed anything of importance about the stations. Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Please. I also clean up the intro and when I get a moment, I add material. In most cases that's far more than anyone has done to these articles in years.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

That is true, and I appreciate the main part of your task in making articles conform with the current naming convention. Very few people are willing to do these unappreciated maintenance functions. I am trying to give you guidance on how a simple edit of one template, which defines the station naming convention that you are converting, is still required to complete that task. Thank you again. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I think one issue here is that these templates are frequently not easy to locate or intuitive to fix. In this case the template isn't included in Category:Virginia Railway Express stations and can't be found even through the "what links here" function. Even Template:Virginia Railway Express gives no clue about it that I can see. It's under an unintuitive name ("VREX stations" instead of "Virginia Railway Express" or "VRE"). I had no idea the template even existed until you brought it up. And even then, (one of) the problems with the Michigan template was that it couldn't be fixed properly until stations in other systems had been moved. As I said, I haven't gotten through all the Virginia stations yet. I'm perfectly willing to fix anything you or others bring to my attention, but in some cases it's just not especially simple.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• This is what I find so sad. Despite my attempts to explain, you still don't understand how this works. I have failed you! Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Ha, everything ok, Zppix?--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Cuchullain Just a little WikiDrunk :D Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk)

Since I'm wikidrunk I guess I could share :D Props for being a great admin as well Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Beers are always appreciated. I'm totally using this one in the future. Thanks, Zppix.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited San Marcos station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Intermodal transportation. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Alexandros Jakupović. Since you had some involvement with the Alexandros Jakupović redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Rovingrobert (talk) 09:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

"Cuchullain moved"

Thank you for quality articles on Welsh and Irish history and literature, especially around King Arthur, for admin services and gnomish tasks such as page moves, disambiguations and categories, for quoting wisdom on theories, for moving memories, - Bill, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Gerda Arendt! That really makes my day.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:36, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey, just noting that South Portland (disambiguation) is still up despite what you said in the RM close. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I've deleted it. --Cúchullain ^t/c 01:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Not sure why you feel the need to keep renaming (less than appropriately) the Utah Transit Authority station in Provo, Utah.

You originally moved (renamed) the article to "Provo Intermodal Hub", although very few (if any) reliable sources refer to the station as such; nor is it known locally by that name. You referred to guidance WP:COMMONNAME and WP:USSTATION as the basis for the change, but BOTH sections suggest leaving it as is. You have also referred to "sources" for the commonality of the name, but have yet to identify such source.

After that problem was corrected, you then moved it to "Provo station (FrontRunner)", even though it is a station that is served by more than just the FrontRunner commuter rail. Again, you referred guidance WP:USSTATION, but again that section supports leaving it as is, rather than your change. If you were planing to create another article under the name "Provo station (Provo Orem MAX)" that might make sense, but that would create far more confusion. For clarification, the station was build to serve the Provo Orem MAX bus rapid transit line, even though the rest of the line is not yet complete. (Yes, this station, as well as the Orem (UTA station) already include the side platforms for this line, and two more such lines anticipated to stop at the Provo station. After these lines are operational, the station will likely serve more MAX passengers that FrontRunner passengers.)

The "Provo (UTA station)" name is consistent with the other rail stations (approximately 70, so far) operated by the Utah Transit Authority (UTA). (The two exceptions to this standard are the "Ogden Intermodal Transit Center", which is also a bus station for Greyhound Lines, and the "Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub", which is also a bus station for Elevated Transit and Greyhound, as well as a train station for Amtrak.)

An Errant Knight (talk) 23:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

An Errant Knight, I'll explain at the talk page. The previous name Provo (UTA station) is deprecated per WP:USSTATION and is not a suitable name.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nicoleño, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Santa Catalina Island. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Why is Joe Ellis not becoming a DAB page vs. moving the primary topic? There was very little discussion of the move and as far as I can tell no notification to WP:NBA that a move of the basketball player was being contemplated. In my opinion, Joe Ellis (American football) should stay the same, Joe Ellis moved to Joe Ellis (basketball) and "Joe Ellis" becomes a redirect. Rikster2 (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Rikster2: The nominator provided statistics that the football president is more viewed. This is a WP:TWODABS situation: only two articles are called "Joe Ellis", and there wasn't even a dab page for Joseph Ellis (disambiguation) until I created a few minutes ago. It's rarely a good idea to have a dab page with only two entries, if one is more prominent, which seems to be the case here. Both of the other participants agreed with the nominator, and there were no objections, so I found it a pretty open-and-shut RM.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the explanation. I don't think the nominator did a very good job of informing interested parties that such a discussion was taking place, but this seems logical enough. Not sure page views is always the best indicator - we had this case with Kevin McHale (basketball) and Kevin McHale (actor) where the actor (who at the time was on the hit TV series Glee) was getting more page hits than the basketball player. To me, that shows "current" interest, but doesn't define who is more notable or worthy of being the primary topic. It just means that the actor is popular now while the retired Hall of Fame basketball player isn't being viewed in the same way current athletes are. I don't think either of these Joe Ellises is a household name, but one is a current figure while the other has retired and exited the limelight. But it is OK. Rikster2 (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Rikster2: it looks like the bot did notify the basketball player's page, but I'm not sure it would have hit the project notifications. That's more a software issue than with the nominator. And yeah, page views aren't always the best indicator, but in this case all the other participants felt they were convincing. He does receive a huger percentage of the hits, and he seems to have been a pretty significant person in the NFL for 25 years.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Where is this discussion of which you speak? Clarityfiend (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

On the talk page. Looks like Laguna CA suggested it. I supported including it because it discusses films, shows, episodes, etc. that aren't on the dab page, per WP:DABMENTION.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Curiouser and curiouser. I don't see anything in that discussion that suggests that any of the participants agreed to this "solution". In fact, your own comments don't even do that. Further, MOS:DABREDIR rules this out ("the redirect could serve as an alternative name for the target article") and DABMENTION has no bearing whatsoever. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll check it again when I get to my computer but as I recall Laguna CA suggested it and I supported including the link (not the other stuff they wanted). Regardless, the link is certainly appropriate per WP:DABMENTION: "If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article should be included." The article contains various film and TV productions called "Robin Hood" that don't have their own article. At any rate it seems a good compromise to the dispute y'all were having.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Notepad (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Codename Lisa (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

You have to fix the articles that link to Wyoming railway station, before you change where it redirects. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Secondarywaltz: I fixed the template first and was waiting to see which ones were real incoming links and which were just template links. There's no requirement to fix incoming links before moving; in fact it's worse to have an undisambiguated title redirect to a disambiguated title.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Since there are several 30th Street stations, the proper naming convention for the ones in Philadelphia should be 30th Street station (SEPTA) and 30th Street Station (Amtrak) for what is now simply 30th Street Station. You have indicted by redirection that generic 30th Street station is the same as the Amtrak station, and that cannot be true. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Secondarywaltz: No, "(SEPTA)" is incomplete disambiguation as it can refer to either of the Philadelphia stations. 30th Street Station is already the de facto primary topic, so we only need to disambiguate the other one. I chose "subway" since both of the two lines that use it are subways, it seemed common enough in the sources, and that seems to been the main distinguishing feature between the two. I intended for 30th Street station (SEPTA) and the related redirects to point to the dab page; hopefully that is fixed now.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

That is not the main point that I was making. I said "You have indicated by redirection that generic 30th Street station is the same as the Amtrak station, and that cannot be true." That generic lower case would apply to any station. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I will leave this subject alone. SEPTA stations are mostly off my watch list. My concern was a series of anon edits adding much redundancy to the infoboxes of many systems. The system icons and logos do not need another subtemplate. Thanks again for the cleanup work you are doing. Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Secondarywaltz: Sorry for the delay. Yeah, I'm not sure about this one. Both capitalizations are in use for 30th Street Station and others. I'd think if it's primary topic for one, it's primary topic of the other as well. As for the edits, thanks. These seem to be particularly bad compared to other systems. Many don't aren't even indicating the system and city. Anyway, when it's done I'll probably request your help updating the station template.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Glen Mills station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Exton station. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)