User talk:In ictu oculi/Archive 2017

Reference errors on 31 December

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 Morley Roberts page, your edit caused a cite 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) 00:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Your page moves

Can you not make page moves like you did here. Taking the Hangul of '이달의 소녀', running it through Google Translate, and moving the page based on how it romanizes it is beyond ridiculous. There is simply no justification for such an ill-advised move. You have a long history of making terrible decisions when it comes to page moves and I've often had to revert many that have popped up on my watchlist. — ξ^xplicit 00:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

We all get some things wrong but the problem is there are no English sources for this new music project yet. As per the comment on Talk page. But okay, point taken. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Ivan

Now that Ana Ivanović has retired, do you think it is more likely that a page move could be negotiated at some point? 110.142.225.47 (talk) 09:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rather Be

Hello In ictu oculi. I pinged you twice, but you did not respond; would you be so kind as to comment on said move discussion? Many thanks and warm regards.--Nevé–selbert 19:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lost in Your Love (Tony Hadley song).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Lost in Your Love (Tony Hadley song).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Ryder Scott for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ryder Scott 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/Ryder Scott (3rd nomination) 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. Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 16 January

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 The Spinners (American R&B group) page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help) and a cite 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) 00:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:On My Way (Lea Michele song).jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:On My Way (Lea Michele song).jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

At Christmas (James Taylor album)

Did you discuss this move somewhere? The actual title is James Taylor at Christmas, so I am curious what prompted this.Kellymoat (talk) 12:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Epitaphium

When you move a page next time, can you do it when I'm less tired? I fixed the links in article space, but many more are now wrong, going to a dab. I'd help but can't keep my eyes open ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I was intending to fix the links myself Gerda. It's often best to leave a few hours to allow templates to adjust. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Learning: which templates? A misleading link in an article is a misleading link the first minute. Nothing wrong with your move, besides the timing. I was already sooo tired, after adding the last pieces, to FP (Poulenc), to be polished. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

It seems to affect mainly bottom of page infoboxes. The "what links here" function continues to show any page with the infobox as linking even if the infobox has been corrected for a time ranging from minutes to hours afterwards. I don't understand why this is the case, but for some reason the infoboxes seem to have some "ghost" input into the What links here function which the system doesn't correct in real time. Odd but real. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Now I understand, you mean you let it sit to tell which links are just from the navbox template. - Graham Waterhouse, - that was my first article, did you know? I wanted to fill a red link, and it was promptly deleted ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes. As I say I can't explain why there's a delay but there is. I didn't know that was your first article. I guess you've performed his pieces? I confess my ignorance, I only knew the Stravinsky. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm a singer and hobby piano player, and only performed some of his choral pieces and the easier ones of his piano works. I wish I could have been in Wigmore Hall when the siblings played Epitaphium, with a quote from the War Requiem, because their father had been the bassoonist in the chamber ensemble in the premiere. I would also have loved to hear 16 bassoonists + contrabassoon from all over the world play the father's arrangement of a Gabrieli piece in that memorial concert. But London was to far away then. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

In ictu oculi and @Gerda Arendt:,

Editors may use these templates under a variety of related circumstances for work that is more-or-less immediately in progress:

• {{under construction}}, {{newpage}}, {{increation}}, {{inuse}}

By the way, I have used only the first, and learned the others just now from its "See also" section Template:Under construction#See also, which is a useful feature of many many templates.

Sometimes I have inserted a comment in the edit summary or in the text, to the effect "that's all until tomorrow" or "I plan to return after a coffee break".

--P64 (talk) 23:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ology (website)

The article Ology (website) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Short lived website

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Does not have an article listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Does not have an article. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Does not have an article redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of La Colección (Lucero album)

The article La Colección (Lucero album) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unremarkable addition, non-notable

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jennica✿ / ^talk 04:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

'Genesis creation narrative'-->'Genesis creation story'

I am considering creating a move request next month when the moratorium is up over at Genesis creation narrative. I have drafted a proposal, and due to your extensive involvement in RM in general, I was wondering if you could look it over and point out any deficiencies in reasoning, or additional avenues I should consider. I realise that this could possibly be construed as canvassing, but that is not my intention. Rather, I think that with a highly polarised proposal like this, it is very important to get the initial proposal as perfect as possible. I might also ask a few other people about their opinions.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  02:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Chowky for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chowky 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/Chowky 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. ChunnuBhai (talk) 06:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Sattam Oru Iruttarai

Thank you for being so pessimistic during the move proposal, with the verdict going in favour of you. As if my day couldn't get any better because my iPad screen cracked not too long after I noticed that. Please do me a favour by supporting at least one of my future move proposals? Kailash29792 (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The Soldier

Thanks for starting this article. :) --USA-Fan (talk) 07:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Organ (film).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Organ (film).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Aura D'Angelo

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Aura D'Angelo requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. DrStrauss talk 11:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I´ve got contested the speedy-deletion. --USA-Fan (talk) 12:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

Hello In ictu oculi,

A HUGE backlog

We now have 803 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

Hitting 17,000 soon

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Translated page

Hi! Thanks for putting one of these on Aura D'Angelo. However, it isn't enough just to put the template there, you need to fill in the details. The full deal is: {{translated page|SourceLanguageCode|SourcePageTitle|version=123456789|insertversion=987654321|section=name}} (the "section" parameter is optional). It's pretty obvious, but if you need help with this, ping me either here or at the talk-page there.

So, the big question: have you translated other pages from other Wikipedias? If so, those too will need to be attributed in this way unless you left a detailed edit summary crediting the source (please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Translating from other language Wikimedia projects for explanation). I may be able to help with that too. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I didn't translate that one, would have to think if ever have done. But thanks for the info. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested move: Using "El Chapo"

Hi, I wanted to reach out to you regarding a title change discussion in Joaquín Guzmán's talk page. You were involved in a previous change change there in 2015. I'd love to read your input. Thank you! ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 15:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Bolero into Bolero (Spanish dance). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, noted but I clearly stated that I moved the 3 sentences on the Talk page per WP:FORK I would have thought that this would do better than a template. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks is not the correct guidance for this. That guidance is what to do if another page on a different site has copied text from Wikiepdia. This is needed so that other editors will know that the text originated on Wikiepdia and was not copied from an external source (See also WP:BACKWARDSCOPY). For examples see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Backwards copy.

The page for guidance for copying text from one article to another within Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia -- PBS (talk) 17:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I see you are still not adding the required attribution, as required under the terms of the CC-by-SA license. Please have a look at this edit summary as an example of how it is done. Please leave a message on my talk page if you still don't understand what to do or why we have to do it. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Draft:The Face of Love (1954 film)

I have closed the move request as no consensus, and started Draft:The Face of Love (1954 film), if you are interested in working that up to article quality. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Precious five years!

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lost in Your Love (John Paul Young song).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Lost in Your Love (John Paul Young song).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Newcomer

Loving Wikipedia Martin1441924 (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.3

Hello In ictu oculi,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 803 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Sergio Leo

Hi, I noticed you were responsible for changing the subject Sergio Leo to Sérgio Léo. Could you please undone this change, since the real name of the person does nor have those grammatical accents?

Capitalization

I beg your pardon. I have seen that you have had an influence on the page Capitalization in English. Therefore, you probably would know the answer to this question better than I would. (There was some confusion on the page Mid-Atlantic accent. Are names of accents capitalized? Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Should be "a mid-Atlantic accent" no capitalization of M. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The real question was for "the Transatlantic accent". Anyway, we did resolve the issue. Nonetheless, thank you for your help.LakeKayak (talk) 21:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Juan Vert for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Juan Vert 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/Juan Vert 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. South Nashua (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Xavier Sabata

added links pointing to William Christie, Les Arts Florissants and Francesco Conti

Andrea Jaffe

added a link pointing to PMK

Constantinople (ensemble)

added a link pointing to Persian music

Flanagan and Allen

added a link pointing to Underneath the Arches

Hypnotized (1932 film)

added a link pointing to Charles Murray

Luis Quiñones de Benavente

added a link pointing to Toledo

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Symphony song

added links pointing to Continuo and Recorders

Norma Ray

added a link pointing to Ready to go

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Zords

Regarding your edit on Zord (diff), I was wondering: do they ever use the term "mecha" on Power Rangers? I don't often hear it on US shows, and was wondering if the pronunciation was relevant. - Reidgreg (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I doubt it. Does the word even need to be there at all? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Isidro López (musician)

added a link pointing to Corpus Christi

The prophecy of the White King

added a link pointing to King Stephen

Ángel Infante

added a link pointing to Las dos huerfanitas

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Kadir Mısıroğlu

Hi IIO, I'm guessing you know some Turkish and/or have an interest in the topic area of Turkey. If so, help at Kadir Mısıroğlu would be appreciated. Recent POV war, faults on both sides IMO. Andrewa (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

ok. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast. (;-> Andrewa (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Move of Tokin to Tokin (headwear)

Just curious why you moved this page as there are no other pages with "tokin" in the title, so a disambiguation page couldn't be created. Please ping me when you reply. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Because half the book refs are to Shogi In ictu oculi (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Book refs? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Yep. Also with en.wp. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

What book refs are you talking about, and what do you mean "also with en.wp"? I'm not following. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Books about chess and en.wp articles about chess. I'll move it back if its that important. But it's an unreferenced stub. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

No, it's fine. I just didn't know what you meant since you provided no details. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Cheers, no worry I wasn't clear. All the best. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't seem fine to me. The so-called explanation, "Half the book refs are to Shogi", explains nothing. It certainly does not explain this move. I've submitted an RM proposal to revert this move: Talk:Tokin_(headwear)#Requested_move_4_May_2017. --В²C ☎ 21:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Best Revenge (film)

added links pointing to Midnight Express and John Heard

Domenico Sarro

added a link pointing to Francesco Bernardi

Griselda

added a link pointing to Francesco Conti

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion invite

Hello. I invite you to join a centralized discussion about naming issues related to China and Taiwan. Szqecs (talk) 14:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Monica Verschoor

Hello, In ictu oculi. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Monica Verschoor, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Monica Verschoor to be deleted, please add a reference to the article. If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page. Thanks,RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 15:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't create it, please see page history. However I'd say it borderline passes. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

City Without Jews move

Hello, I was curious - I saw you moved The City Without Jews without an explanation. It still redirects to the film article, so... mind if I move it back? If there isn't another topic by that name, there's no need for the disambiguator... SnowFire (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Well there is another topic, the book the film is based on. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough! (I wasn't the one who moved it back, FWIW.) If you can write an article on the novel, that'd be super-cool, although it looks like de doesn't have a fresh one ready for translation... at least not linked on de:Hugo Bettauer. (Oddly enough, Berlin Without Jews, a later novel, did seem to have some English sources & a German wikipedia article when I created that article - dunno why that novel people remembered, but not the earlier one.) SnowFire (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Acte Préalable

The article Acte Préalable has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Glad that was withdrawn. It's probably more locally notable in Poland but still, many awards. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bible Collection, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mary Magdalene (film). 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) 10:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Eunice Wu for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eunice Wu 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/Eunice Wu 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. L3X1 (distant write) 16:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Metahistory

I think White's book is clearly the primary topic for the search term "Metahistory" - regardless of whether the term has been employed before. IF you want Metahistory to redirect to historiography then I will have to place a hatnote on historiography to note that "metahistory redirects here, for the book by Hayden White see Metahistory (Hayden White)" and that may be a little excessive. So if you insist that the article about White's work should be located at a disambiguation title then I think we will need a disambiguation page and not a redirect.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of moving the article about the book to the full title of the book and creating a disambiguation page at Metahistory.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

But in fact many of the incoming links were not for the book, other than the author article itself. Most of the other links were mislinking. However I will place it back and start a move discussion. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I found one incoming link that resolved to the book and a couple of indeterminate ones.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I've been fixing them. There are links to the book in See also sections. But Metahistory isn't a book, it's a part of the full title of a book which we have abbreviated. The dab page is a good idea, that will pick up future mislinks. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if there are sources to write an article about the concept Metahistory that could include White's usage as well as others without having to resort to OR. Who has written about the history of Metahistory?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The incoming links from articles such as the The French Lieutenant's Woman seem generic mentions covered by historiography, though there is the article Metanarrative (not the same thing). In ictu oculi (talk) 11:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

ANI discussion about you

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

SEE: Pattern of making controversial title changes without RM or discussion by user In ictu oculi

--В²C ☎ 01:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sex, Drugs, Rock 'N' Roll & the End of the World, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Fred Jones, Mike Griffin and Michael Simmons. 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) 10:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

R.P.M. (song) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect R.P.M. (song). Since you had some involvement with the R.P.M. (song) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. JMHamo (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Your "informal collaborator" move

Why did you move Informal collaborator to Informal collaborator (East Germany)? Korny O'Near (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

That's what he does and why I opened an ANI on him (see above). I reverted this umpteenth unexplained/undiscussed move. --В²C ☎ 05:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm reading the logs right, but as near I can figure the first move of the page was on 16 February 2017‎ when User:Korny O'Near moved it... It had been created in the fall of 2014 by User:Charles01 and had apparently (if I'm reading the logs right) created under the name "Informal collaborators (East Germany)" (plural on collaborators) and kept that name until 16 February 2017‎ when User:Korny O'Near] moved it... I'm not sure why he did that (liked it better I guess) but possibly should have been a Requested Move discussion; possibly a better title if the parens weren't wanted would have been "Informal collaborators in East Germany" on Recognizability grounds (it's not about people who in general informally collaborate with other people, but about a specific class of people who delivered information to the Statsi in a certain historical place and time, so the present title is arguably confusing).

If WP:BRD applies to page moves, then the move back to "Informal collaborator (East Germany)" (not precisely a restoration, as it uses the singular of collaborator) on 20 April 2017‎) would be valid, and the correct next step would not to be move it back as was done on 2 May 2017‎ by User:Born2cycle, which kind of opens up a back-and-forth type situation, but to open a discussion. (One could say 20 April 2017‎ is two months after 16 February 2017 so too late for WP:BRD... but on the other hand there were no intervening page moves... it's debatable.)

At any rate, that probably answers the User:Korny O'Near's "why" question above: "restoring previous stable version". It would be very helpful if User:In ictu oculi would have said so, though.

User:Charles01 created the page via translation and many edits, so pinging him to see if he has any thoughts on the title. The German version is named just "Inoffizieller Mitarbeiter", but of course the term may be more easily understood in Germany. Herostratus (talk) 06:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• On February 16, 2017 Korny O'Near moved Informal collaborators (East Germany) to Informal collaborator and gave the following sound reasoning: "Simplified name - no need for disambiguation". Both using singular form and avoiding unnecessary disambiguation are standard conventions in titles here. This is a perfectly reasonable and understandable move.
• On April 20, 2017, over two months later, and knowing full well that having unnecessary disambiguation in a title is a controversial issue, In ictu oculi never-the-less moved Informal collaborator to Informal collaborator (East Germany) with edit summary, "revert move". No basis in policy. No reasoning. Nothing. You know why? Because there is no basis in policy or reasoning to justify this "revert" (which as you note - is actually a partial revert).
• On May 1 2017, about 10 days later, I reverted the April 20 unjustified "revert", restoring the previous stable and justified title from February 16, and left the summary accordingly: "Revert undiscussed/unjustified move - unnecessary disambiguation"

Make sense? --В²C ☎ 07:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it makes sense. Lots of things make sense that aren't necessary right. It is at least arguable that "Informal collaborator" is a mediocre title for the article, putting the reader in mind to perhaps expect something like this:

Informal collaborators are workers who form part of a group dedicated to achieving a single objective, but who do not directly affect each others work. For example, magazine writers are often informal collaborators; each writer creates part of the magazine (an article) without reference to what the other writers are creating. This in contrast to the formal collaboration seen for example in business, where workers may view and discuss each other's input into a common output such as a report... etc... In music, members of a improvisational free-form jazz combo are often informal collaborators, in contrast to symphony musicians who are formal collaborators with precisely defined roles... etc... In anarcho-syndicalist theory, "informal collaborators" refers to the relationship between shop workers... etc... }

But that article is not about that, at all. It's about something else altogether different. Since it's about something else altogether different, it should possibly say what that thing is. This is a good thing for titles to do, IMO. "Informal collaborators of East Germany" gives a great deal more information ("Informal collaborators (East Germany)" is essentially the same thing). "Informal Stasi collaborators" gives even more (but depends on the reader knowing what Stasi is, and also breaks the phrase, so not sure about that).

So do you still think that there is "no basis in... reasoning" for the title to be anything other than "Informal collaborator"? Really? No basis?

FWIW, "using singular form... [is] standard conventions in titles here" doesn't seem to necessarily be so, as I just was looking at where a mass of article were moved from "Spanish Canadian" (etc.) to "Spanish Canadians". Yes I get about unnecessary disambiguation, and fine, but if you're hung up on parens then just take out the parens and its not disambiguation anymore -- its just descriptive.

None of this is terrible. Korny O'Near should probably have initiated a Requested Move discussion, is all. He didn't and got rolled back. (Whether 2 months makes a current stable version for moves is debatable IMO; I don't like going on the basis of "didn't notice in time? gotcha!", but at the same time yeah there has to be some cutoff.) According to you he made the move on the basis of "no reasonable person could possibly object to this, so no RM needed" and fine -- WP:BOLD and all. He got rolled back So? That's what happens -- you make a move, you get rolled back, take it to talk and make your case there.

At the same time, I'm sensitive to the argument "Look, as a practical matter, 'Informal collaborators (East Germany)' is going to get voted down, we've seen this many times, so why waste time". That's reasonable. Still, I would recommend possibly erring on the side of caution in these matters. There's no hurry, we want to get it right eventually, not necessarily at once. Herostratus (talk) 08:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I've been busy as a Bank Holiday weekend and also not wanting to take part in sifting. As above I reverted the undiscussed move because I supported the article creator's title. And marked it as "revert move". I have pinged the article's author on the Talk page, expressing agreement with his chosen title, as it has now been moved again. Thanks Herostratus for the lengthy and correct understanding displayed above. I now have to go back to deadline. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

In ictu oculi - as В²C noted, you didn't actually revert the move; you changed it to a third title. (Are you aware of that?)

Herostratus - it's certainly possible that a reader would expect to see, at an article titled Informal collaborator, something more generic than a discussion of informants in East Germany. It's also possible that a reader would go to the article Friends and be surprised to see that it's about a TV show. I don't think that the expectations of hypothetical readers should play a major part in our decision-making, especially when there lots of explicit guidelines about article naming. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, you make a good argument for possibly moving Friends to Friends (television show) (on the merits; I'm not suggesting this (certainly not without a discussion), in deference to various rules or common practices). Expectations of hypothetical readers should play a major part in our decision-making, maybe. It's a reasonable opinion to think so anyway.

Indeed, Recognizability, one of the Five Virtues or article titles, says so: "The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize". Only an expert in the details of East German police practices will recognize "Informal collaborators" as being about the Inoffizieller Mitarbeiter. Someone familiar with, but not expert in, East German police practices (like me for instance), will know the term "Stasi" and so will recognize ""Informal Stasi collaborators". Herostratus (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're making a case for there. Should the article be titled "Informal Stasi collaborators"? That name at least has the advantage of not including nonsensical parentheses. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The main issue here presumes "Informal collaborator" is the WP:COMMONNAME for this topic, and so it's about deciding between Informal collaborator and Informal collaborator (East Germany). If anyone wants to argue that "Informal collaborator" is not the COMMONNAME, then that's something else entirely to consider, and definitely requires a separate RM. So back to the issue at hand. Almost exclusively we use parenthetical disambiguation for exactly that: disambiguation. Parenthetical disambiguation is not a way to clarify what specifically the title is referring to, unless that's necessary for disambiguation. And I wouldn't get too hung up on the familiar/expert distinction. It's very subjective. The guiding principle is this: if someone is looking for a topic, what are they most likely to use to search for it? If it's "Informal collaborator" then that should be the title, not "Informal collaborator (East Germany)", which is certainly less likely to be entered by anyone. --В²C ☎ 18:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Right. Well with "'Informal collaborator (East Germany)'... is certainly less likely to be entered by anyone" you make the Naturalness argument "The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for" (certainly an example of considering the "expectations of hypothetical readers" recently deprecated above). And fine. But IMO this is not a key issue as long the proper redirects are in place. Whether readers are more likely to search on "Informal collaborator" or "Stasi informer" or "East german informers" or whatever I don't know.

BTW another point for "Informal collaborator" rather than "Informal Stasi collaborator" is that Inoffizieller Mitarbeiter is a term (like "Person of interest", which is not the same as "interesting person") and "Informal Stasi collaborator" is merely a description, and if we're going to go with just a description then maybe "Stasi informant" would be in order. But Inoffizieller Mitarbeiter is not a term in English, and WP:COMMONNAME specifically prescribes "prevalence in... English-language sources" only. A reasonable case could be made for "well, even so, it's common in German [if true -- dunno] and it just makes sense to bring it over in translation" It's a fair case but not overwhelming, and anyway if accepted then "Informal collaborators in East Germany" would also cover that point.

(It's actually not impossible that the article should actually be titled "Inoffizieller Mitarbeiter" if (as sometimes happens) the foreign-language term is treated as a loan term in most English-language sources; I doubt it, since it would have to be quite a strong trend to overcome Recognizability that way. But research might prove that it is.)

So should the article be titled "Informal collaborator" (or plural of that) or "Informal Stasi collaborators" or "Stasi informers" or "Informal collaborators in East Germany" or "Informal collaborators (East Germany)"? (As to that last, I do understand the objection to parentheses, which are mainly used for disambiguation, being used for elucidation as 1) it's potentially confusing, and 2) makes some people pound their forehead on the desk, which we don't want editors upset, all things equal.)

Search me. "Should" is hard thing to determine. But since it's a "maybe", I would gently suggest that if BRD'd back one might consider taking it to talk rather than doubling down. After all, this discussion has opened up a couple of previously-unconsidered compromises or ways forward, so -- time-consuming as it is -- that can be fruitful. Herostratus (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

It's fine where it is. Anyone favoring a different title is certainly welcome to open an RM discussion accordingly. --В²C ☎ 20:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, please read this

Hi In ictu oculi. Above you said "Thanks Herostratus for the lengthy and correct understanding displayed above" and earlier on my talk you have said (re the ANI thread) "You're absolutely correct, and thank you for your comments".

So although I have also probably said things you don't like (re HacoGate (HacoGhazi?)), take me as a non-hostile person, which is true -- I'm not hostile.

As a non-hostile person, may I suggest that you, as general rule, use a lot more WP:RM and a lot less unilateral moving. It is possible that User:Born2cycle should also -- I don't know -- and maybe you could both agree to do so, or something.

User:Born2cycle makes the point that, justified as they may be on the merits (or not -- I'm not making judgement because I don't know), anything that could conceivably be objected to just on titling rules alone, you should discuss. So should User:Born2cycle IMO. Really, so should all of us.

I understand "Well, it is crystal-clear to me, as an experienced editor that has worked in this area a lot, that this is the better title" as the basis for a unilateral move. However, IMO it needs to be "Well, it is crystal-clear to me, as an experienced editor that has worked in this area a lot, that this is the better title and no sane person could possibly object" needs to be the operative hurdle to clear.

I think a lot less drama this way (and if "no sane person could possibly object" still gets you in move wars, just expand your definition of "sane person" until it does I guess).

And there's no hurry. There's no "I must move this article now". Set up an RM, make your case and give your reasons, and see what shakes out. Sometimes you'll be turned down. Oh well -- Wikipedia! If you're making an article and need the title space cleared, I dunno -- keep the article in draft, or use a different name, or something, until the RM clears, I guess.

Of course, I get the point that "User:In ictu oculi and User:Born2cycle both agreeing to use RM's almost always" is not exactly a parallel situation for various reasons. What can I say? Life isn't fair. It's the best solution I can think of.

What say you? Herostratus (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I resent being thrown into the same bucket here. I'm generally very conscientious about using RM rather than making unilateral moves, and even at my worst (like last night) I explain at length what I'm doing and why. That said, if IIO volunteers to stop making unilateral moves and to always use RM per your standard (or, even better, "even B2C would agree with this", LOL), that would be fine with me, and we could probably avoid a formal sanction. --В²C ☎ 21:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

OK. Well, User:Born2cycle has declined to join this suggested mutual agreement, so I'll stop meddling. I don't really know the right-and-wrong of all this, but I do note that that you get occasional objections on your talk page. This could be just an effect of you being busy and productive, or it could be a signal that you're a bit hasty sometimes, and I don't know which it is. Herostratus (talk) 11:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Herostratus (talk · contribs) I don't think you're meddling, but being helpful. I would hope that anything that is 1% among x000s edits is worked out. And whereever they have arisen they have been worked out. An example being Talk:Informal collaborator (East Germany) where I reverted a move and asked the original article creator if he supported the revert and he does. Over 12 over 24 months when discussion arises related to articles they are settled at the article with no problem. If I wasn't happy to let edits be challenged there'd be a problem, but I don't do that, I go on to other tasks. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Your edits are not at issue. It's your moves. Just your moves. The unilateral ones. And it's far more than 1% of your moves that are an issue. Probably more than 50% of them. Do you want me or someone to do an exhaustive analysis? It probably should be done. The only reason only a few were cited at the AN/I is because no one has done such a search and analysis. But we could, if you'd like... --В²C ☎ 21:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

OK. Yes, it probably should be done... but by a neutral admin, which I'm not. Sometimes a case comes up where someone, or a group, will do a deep dig, but this seems unlikely here -- probably because it looks too much like (and maybe is) a content disagreement, with not necessarily any egregiously bad behavior. Admins at ANI are looking for things like edit wars, horribly rude behavior, vandalism, legal threats, and so forth, things which can be fairly easily determined what is going on, and which are unacceptable.

User:Born2cycle, it's a little like going to the police with "I know you are busy with murders and robberies, but my neighbor and I have been fighting for years over his putting his stuff on my property, and that matters too and it's become unbearable, please tell him to stop". In a fair world you have a reasonable complaint, but in point of fact the police are likely to be of the mind "Call when someone is actually shot, and anyway we can't adjudicate where your property line is".

My guess is the thread may expire with no action, or with an overt decision of "no action to take here". The second-most-likely outcome is that you, User:In ictu oculi, will indeed be enjoined from moving pages without an RM. There are, after all, an awful lot of complaints in that thread about your moves. I think you should take that to heart, User:In ictu oculi.

And if you are so enjoined, [User:In ictu oculi]], I hope you will not go into a huff, but be of the mind "Oh well, you win some and you lose some, and life isn't fair, and after all there were a number of editors joining the case against me. So oh well, I will simply adjust my mode of operation to Requested-Move everything. This will slow me down, but I can live with that; and some of my RM's will be turned down, but it is what it is, and anyway but that is not a "loss" for me but a win for the community who got to have their voices heard".

And whether enjoined or not, both of you shouldn't be moving stuff anyway, without an RM, as a general rule. Sorry, but my take is that both of you ohave a poor grasp of "could anybody possibly object to this?" and so you should be going to the community for confirmation a lot more. Herostratus (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Herostratus, other than what has been going in the last week, do you have any evidence of me EVER making an inappropriate move of any article? Seriously, what are you talking about? You're comparing someone with no record (me) to a serial unilateral article mover. By the way, I just created another section with another example on the AN/I, this one for Tokin. I did not revert. I created an RM to revert. Good? --В²C ☎ 21:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, fine, sorry. Herostratus (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

But "could anybody possibly object to this?" isn't really the standard. Anyone could object to anything (three common sources of invalid objections are control-freakism/OWN/VESTED, personal dislike of the mover, and plain ol' incompetence). The objections have to have some kind of basis, or it's just noise. We have WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, WP:GAMING, WP:LAWYER, etc. for a real reason: one cannot go around filibustering and monkeywrenching the standard operating procedures being used by other editors. An "if anyone could possibly object" standard would mean that page moving would have to be disabled, except for admins enacting the consensus at closed RMs.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I concur with Herostratus's "as general rule, use a lot more WP:RM and a lot less unilateral moving" advice. Times have simply changed, and expectations along with them. There are too many territorial drama mongers to just move everything as you see fit these days. I learned this the hard way (3-month move ban, even though I was right and the moves I made were later upheld in full RM), GoodDay learned it the hard way, Dicklyon learned it the hard way. A probably-good approach to pursue is, when you think a series of moves will not be controversial, make a few of those moves, with edit summaries that clearly cite policy, guidelines, sources, or some other clear rationale, and then see if people lose their shit. If they don't, move more of them. Better yet, do a mass RM. If they do lose their shit, stop and do a regular RM. Aside from Hero's advice, I would also offer the suggestion to not do any more unilateral moves to or away from disambiguation without RM discussions. The shit-losing potential is exceedingly high with those. An exception would be to revert previously undiscussed moves to/from disambiguation. Use "reversing undiscussed move" the reason, and state an expectation of an RM discussion if someone doesn't agree. In this, the rules are on your side, since any undiscussed move can be speedily reversed, either manually, or via WP:RM/TR if the redir has been edited or there is some other technical problem.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: @Herostratus: yes I'd say that's sensible. And is a decision I already took three weeks ago. However given that given that all forms of disambiguation work are fundamentally geared to disambiguating and not to ambiguating, the simpler solution would simply be don't bother at all. As we've seen it's very easy for editors who do not contribute to article space to invest time to go hunting through a haystack of edits from years back to dig up something to object to. It's just not worth the hassle. No one volunteers their time for an experience like this. There are other projects to edit. But thanks for your comments both of you, appreciated and already in agreement. Could go back to doing Polish and Vietnamese bios, but not in the immediate future. Who knows, take care. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Well I mean you sound a little put out, and I surely understand that. Try not to let if faze you though. Take a couple days off to be mad, but get back on that horse. Chalk it up to politics, which is the human condition. I've certainly run into it. We want and need to to continue your work, if you will.

Instead of just moving pages, make an RM. All it takes is a minute of time, and then to wait a week. Waiting a week is not a big deal, I'm sure that you can adjust to it. If you're making other pages such that a new primary topic is needed, just do a multi-RM "I made Foo (X) and Foo (Y), so now I want to move Foo to Foo (Z) and make Foo a dab page. OK?" (or "I made Foo(X), I think its the primary topic, so I want to move Foo (X) to Foo and Foo to Foo (disambiguation)" or whatever it is. There's no real cost if Foo (Z) stays at Foo for a week, or Foo (X) has to park at that name for a week. There's no hurry. We're here for the long term and our goal is to get things right eventually, not today.

And of course there's a big upside: maybe you're wrong. Maybe you figure there's a primary topic and you're wrong, or vice versa, or whatever. Getting other voice is a good learning experience. Obviously we all want stuff to be as the community wants. So there's no harm in checking. And if it's slam-dunk obvious, it will pass thru with little or no objection and Bob's your uncle. All you've lost is a week of calendar time. So there's no big downside, beyond having to have a little patience. So maybe look at it that way. Herostratus (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

You are right, though it's not quite that simple, since reating RM's on the "B2C might object" basis also creates a significant amount of work for everyone. In practice B2C usually only follows and objects to a small number of edits, and then reverts them. It's more the stalker issue, plus ancient history like anti-diacritic warriors waiting in the wings. Easier just to not bother. But cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

In ictu, count me among those who sincerely hopes you don't get discouraged. Though we've often disagreed, I also hope you'll continue to be involved in the move process if you choose, as you provided valuable input in RM discussions. Herostratus and SMcCandlish's suggestions are wise, and following them would allow you to avoid most of the problems you've experienced over moves. But if you decide to get away from the move process, there are plenty of other tasks out there that could use help from a dedicated editor. Cheers,--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm quite happy to listen to Herostratus and SMcCandlish, but not yourself. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Listen to the community

Yes, I did go through a 1-year forced vacation from Wikipedia & so I do know what I'm posting about, when I tell you to drop the Bunker mentality. Don't make the mistakes I made. If you increasingly peeve enough members of the community? scrutiny grows & restrictions will follow. GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mario Chicot Ke An Wen.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mario Chicot Ke An Wen.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4

Hello In ictu oculi,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 803 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Krassimira Stoyanova

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Krassimira Stoyanova requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. St0n3 BG (talk) 01:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

ANI

Just wanted to say -- the whole ANI thing was absurd. It's unfortunate that a good editor such as you should be put through that. I value Wikipedia but the culture behind it certainly has some negative aspects -- something I discovered very quickly when I started editing years ago. Then again, so does culture in the real world... Omnedon (talk) 13:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree it's unfortunate and it's equally unfortunate that it was necessary. It could have been easily avoided if IIO had simply abided by the basic rules of using RM whenever a page move is "potentially controversial", as he should have known and had been reminded multiple times by multiple people. His belief that I went through his history and dug up a few anomalies demonstrates that he still doesn't get it. I didn't do that. Most if not all of the old examples raised in that ANI were initially brought up by others. But he wants to ignore everything everyone else said in agreement with the basic contention in that ANI (and on this talk page) and believe it's about me. That's sad. --В²C ☎ 20:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

B2C, my comment above was not directed at you. You failed to get the result you desired at ANI, and here you are still poking at this issue. That's what sad here. Please drop it. Omnedon (talk) 01:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

You know nothing about my desires, but as usual you think you have some ability to divine such. I'm quite satisfied with the result, and you should be too. --В²C ☎ 18:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

What I know is what you clearly stated at ANI. You did not get the result you sought, which was a restriction on IIO's ability to move pages. Yet you continue to harp about it. What you almost got is a boomerang. So again, please drop it. Omnedon (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested input

Hello, I frequently see you contribute to articles listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture and would very much appreciate your input on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture#Eradication of variety show sections so that a conclusion towards variety show appearances can be made. Thanks. Abdotorg (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Paul Johnson (singer)

The article Paul Johnson (singer) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

»

Do not keep "»" in articles in place of quotation marks. Thanks. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 02:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Musics listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Musics. Since you had some involvement with the Musics redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Ssjhowarthisawesome (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Aché (album)

The article Aché (album) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jennica✿ / ^talk 07:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:WP Gambia

Template:WP Gambia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Coexist (image)

There is a new source for this article on Vox from 2016. I saw that you created it and @Davidwr: helped expand it. thought ya'all might want to take a look.--v/r - TP 23:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Fueler) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Fueler, In ictu oculi!

Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I have tagged this for clean-up. It has only one entry, which is now a redirect to the artist, but I was unsure what was best: deletion, redirect to Pearcy or redirect to Fuel or Refuelling dabs.

To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Boleyn (talk) 08:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@Boleyn: I didn't create that page, that was a redirect to Fueling. I would agree with you. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I should have checked more closely, I know you're an experienced editor and it was unlikely to have been your creation. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 09:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Justine Henin

Looking at French sources, it's difficult to say whether Henin's name is just that, or Hénin. Rovingrobert (talk) 08:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@Rovingrobert: Certainly with her married name quality sources spell fully "20 minutes - Justine Hénin-Hardenne et son mari se séparent" etc. or this http://www.humanite.fr/node/290928 but French tabloid sources suffer the same problems as English ones. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Anglicisation

Upon reading a few prior RM discussions, it's genuinely intriguing how many people think dropping diacritics makes a word or name "English." As an example, Djokovic is not a transcription of Đoković. Djokovich, on the other hand, would be.

It is generally preferred to use diacritics, of course. French, Spanish and German accents are commonly used in English writing, even in the absence of other languages' equivalents. But in the state I live in in my country, for instance, diacritics are not permitted in names. As such, people often respell diacritics rather than directly stripping them from their own names. In some cases, individuals have no diacritics in their name, but modify the spelling to aid pronunciation by others. Rovingrobert (talk) 05:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't honestly think it's that many. If it were that many there wouldn't be a local cluster of English-names-for-foreigners enthusiasts camped out on the retired Serbian lady's page, which is still the only clear exception. 99% of editors seem to have no allergy to fonts with accents haceks. Đ is complicated by the old Serbian romanization being Dj before it was Đ I guess. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. But I'll have you know it's háček, you closet xenophobe :) Rovingrobert (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of O'Hara's Playboys

The article O'Hara's Playboys has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Cannot find any evidence of hits, awards, significant press coverage, national tours or any notable band member. Fails WP:NBAND

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rogermx (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of O'Hara's Playboys for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article O'Hara's Playboys 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/O'Hara's Playboys 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. Rogermx (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello In ictu oculi, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
• Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

• Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
• The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:
  • User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js adds a link to the new pages feed and page curation toolbar to your top toolbar on Wikipedia
  • User:The Earwig/copyvios.js adds a link in your side toolbox that will run the current page through

General project update:

• Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Noticeboard has been marked as historical. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers is currently the most active central discussion forum for the New Page Patrol project. To keep up to date on the most recent discussions you can add it to your watchlist or visit it periodically.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Baby Love (1984 film)

Hello, In ictu oculi. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Baby Love (1984 film), for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

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

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

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

NikolaiHo^☎️ 01:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I didn't start that article In ictu oculi (talk) 06:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Move review for Usher (musician)

I have asked for a Move review of Usher (musician). Because you were involved in the discussion you might want to participate in the move review. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Country Mile (Ernie Smith album).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Country Mile (Ernie Smith album).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Minorca/Menorca

Please, I'd ask you to seek consensus before unilaterally moving a whole host of articles just on the basis that the "main" article was moved. Many of those are independent articles with their own motives and/or specific uses of English translations, and many of your edits are even breaking some of those pages' templates. Also, the most recent move request in the Minorca article was only supported by a difference of one vote (out of three people involved) and this just after there were several other move request which were strongly rejected.

In fact, WP:CONSISTENCY would call for the Menorca article to be dubbed as Minorca (not the other way around). Specially seeing how Majorca is also refered to in its English form and not as Majorca, or how this also happens for Seville, Biscay, etc. This is the English Wikipedia, and English is used in a preferential way not because of it being "British colonial", but because of it being the Wikipedia in English. Impru20 (talk) 13:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

But as I just said at your talk page, the modern sources for those modern parties are (a) either in Spanish even in English sources, or (b) use Menorca in English. If we were talking about the 1870s then yes, but we are talking 1987-1994, and the 21st Century sources don't used the 19th Century name for 1987-1994. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

There was an earlier move request petition for the Minorca article that was much better documented that the one that finally went through (and much more discussed). I don't know how even the move went ahead given that two previous move requests were brought down so drastically, and that your own claims now were already put down then. In fact, you were involved in all of these move requests, and in two of them your call was defeated. Despite that, you've continued trying over time to keep this moved, and now that you got it, you seem to be using this as basis to outrighly move every article which has a "Minorca" in its title.

I disagree with the move of the Minorca article, but even so, the approved move was ONLY for such an article, not for everything else you're now moving (specially Minorcan parties which have their names in English and you try to have in somewhat of a mixture between English and Spanish/Catalan, despite an English translation being available for "Menorca"). You're not entitled to do so, and for seeking to change independent articles you should seek consensus to do so first. Specially seeing how hotly contested has been the move of the original Minorca article in the past. Impru20 (talk) 13:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, everyone has conceded that English sources have moved. If you object fine. That's fine. As I said more sources are needed first. Particularly for these political parties - where as I showed you, the English sources name Esquerra de Menorca by the local name. For example. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Move review for Damn (Kendrick Lamar album)

An editor has asked for a Move review of Damn (Kendrick Lamar album). Because you were involved in the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. — TheMagnificentist 12:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I think I already commented. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Redirects from people; Stubs; template {Authority control}

Second of two. See #‎Epitaphium.

In ictu oculi,

Redirects from people commonly include data that should be retained in a stub biography, more than you retained for Moira Young this winter (revision, 2016-12-25).

In this case, Template: Authority control as well as {DEFAULTSORT} and the article categories that you did retain. {Authority control} belongs in the footer of every biography where any of the relevant ID are available, and it doesn't hurt to include it anyway. The template parameters aren't necessary if there is a corresponding Wikidata item where those values have been entered, and the template with no parameter values will generate no display in the biography footer if there are no parameter values entered at Wikidata.

For Moira Young there are no parameter values now defined at Wikidata, D:Q28059228 [no longer true 2017-08-11]. If you had retained the template in December, those values would have been transferred to Wikidata by some one, perhaps a robot --and quickly so, if I understand correctly.

I am now "out of date" on how that process works. Let me restore the template with parameter values to the biography footer, rather than enter those values at Wikidata manually. ...  Done (revision, last hour).

Soon the parameter values will be moved from template {Authority control} to the Wikidata item, I expect. --P64 (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Moira Young authority control parameter values were deleted from our footer and added at Wikidata by the robot user:KasparBot soon after midnight, 24+ hours after I restored them here manually. --P64 (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Last hour I added data to the redirect from another writer, namely Rachel Hartman, perhaps the first I have done this year (revision, now). With a long comment that prepares for its replacement by a stub biography. Do you think the main instruction in square brackets is clear? --P64 (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for this. I have to say in the Moira Young expansion missed the Authority Control template. Only vaguely aware of them, but wouldn't knowingly have deleted one. Can you be more more clear "the main instruction in square brackets" - where exactly? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

[1] the first line of the WP:COMMENT, or that which immediately "<!--", namely

"[ Please use these external links templates, including {Authority control}, when a stub article is created ]".

--P64 (talk) 21:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

A Generous Thank You foe your Assistance

Hi and Good Afternoon @In ictu oculi:!

I am writing this message to say that, I thank you so very much for being able to find that 2008 source link for the Mohegan Lake, New York Article! You can respond back to this message for when you have the opportunity.

Warm regards,

Sarah Sarah.t.life 16:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Lucky Boy

In response to your message on my talk page, yes, it would be great if you could add the book cover to the Lucky Boy (novel) article. Neptune's Trident (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Moving articles to disambiguated titles

I've noticed you've moved several articles to disambiguated titles, but left the original titles as redirects to the new titles. If you were going to redirect the original title to a disambiguation page I could understand this but leaving the original title as a redirect to the new title doesn't seem to serve any purpose other than make the article title more cumbersome. If there are no articles for topics with the same title, we don't need to add disambiguation. Examples: [2], [3], [4], [5]. --Michig (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Am in the process of fixing the first there. The Traffickers is simply incorrect title, please see edit summary. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello In ictu oculi, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.

Technology update:

• Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.

General project update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
• Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Notability of Jennifer Tuner (musician)

If you would take a look at all the references i collected for the article (in a period of about half a year) and check those against Wikipedia:Notability_(music) you would see - like i already discussed with several editors during the draft phase - that those references easily show notability according to more than then ten points of the guidelines... Shown notability is the reason it is not a draft anymore.. Each source is checked for author/journalist reliability (all worked at some point or are working for well-know musical media, newspapers or radio station), each source is checked (all magazines etc. are well-know for their expertise in music) - almost all having their own wikipedia-page. Besides that there are the books and encyclopedia entries providing infos about things like her unique playing style (one of the books even got its own chapter about her). I can easily show the guideline matching as i already did before. "borderline. Merge to Furslide" - which is only one of the bands she played in (besides beeing the Frontwomen there alongside two other notable musicians (which is only one of the guideline criterias and also Furslide as band (article not written by me btw) matching e.g. the guideline criteria for a major label (virgin)) make it appears to me like you are on some kind of personal vendetta since you saw my move-page request mentioning you - but not like an objective discussion. No hard feelings - we all just want to improve wikipedia... — Preceding unsigned comment added by TGSTINT (talk • contribs) 19:41, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Okay. But this is probably best copy-pasted to the article's talk page. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The Human Factor (1975 film)

Hi, just a question about the page move here. Another editor have objected to the movie, quoting:

The actual on-screen title, as seen in this film's opening credits is The "Human" Factor, not The Human Factor. The proper form of this title can be easily confirmed, since the film available online, in addition to being listed as The "Human" Factor at British Film Institute and the Internet Movie Database

—  —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 16:05, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Is it possible to hear your opinion on the move? I have suggested to the editor to open a regular move request in the meanwhile. Regards, Alex Shih^Talk 01:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

English Sources

Nothing terribly wrong with waiting a few more weeks. In the meantime, perhaps we could fix the only other misnamed article: Grand Duchy of Cracow. Here's my proposed RM text for that article, feel free to refactor it, fix my language, add new facts, and then in few days we could start that one? Of course to avoid improper canvassing we would announce it in relevant WikiProjects (Poland, Austria, History I guess?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

"Let's try this again, seven years later. Since then, the situation hasn't changed except Kraków spelling getting more and more prominent. Unfortunately, Google's Ngram does not seem updated post 2008 (so I'll just derot the link: [6]). While it appears the usage is roughly same, here are arguments in favor of changing the name of the article: 1) there is no denying Kraków is the modern spelling; while there is no official decision by the city council about English name (AFAIK), I found 2008 newspaper which cited an official from the city promotion department saying that they prefer Krakow (22) and a 2015 blog of professional translator (23) which discusses pros and cons and notes that official website uses Krakow and that official websites should be taken as official positions in lieu of official statements. 2) That's Polish media/view. How about English mainstream usage? The cited 2008 article already ten years ago counted that NYT, Guardian, BBC, CNN, Fox News and Yahoo were leaning towards K-spelling over C-spelling by ratio of 60-90% depending on the platform. National Geographic, Lonely Plant, Eyewitness Books, Encyclopedia Britanica have also switched to the K-spelling in the last dozen years or so. 3) That leaves the argument 'historical context'. Well, counting use of 'Grand Duchy of C/K' is fallacious because most sources about in English are old, so the publication count will be skewed towards C since most older (up to mid-20th century sources in particular) would use C-spelling, and Google Book search for those terms favor C-spelling at a ration 5:1, through ironically Google (which has long treated Cracow as mispelling - check your gmail) does helpfully note in the search for "Grand Duchy of Krakow" Did you mean: "Grand Duchy of Krakow" :> But if we limit the search in books to 2010+, C gets 247 ([7]) and K gets 147 ([8]), so we are almost at the flipping point there as well (and let's not forget that this calculation is also skewed because reprints, but there is no easy way to dismiss them - but it is possible that for purely new works the flip has already occurred). 4) Finally, let's not forget WP:CONSISTENCY. Consistency is good for readers. This still remains the only article on Wikipedia related to Kraków-history spelled with C-spelling (well, ok, recently Free City of Kraków got renamed, but this happened due to canvassing by a now-banned editor, and will likely go back once we get around to a new RM there). So why is this the ONLY Wikipedia article on Kraków history with a C-spelling? (Just take a look at Category:History of Kraków, note also Kraków Governorate, Kraków Voivodeship, Kraków Department, Kraków District in the administrative history, with the current Duchy being again the only odd exception). Anyway, unless there is an official name change, there is no reason to use varying names outside of an etymology section and confuse readers. So since there is no official recognition for use of Cracow, also in the historical context, I think the consistency argument suggests that using Krakow everywhere is the sensible, reader-friendly thing to do. The argument that C was more popular than K in 19th century works so we should use it in this context is, to me, ridiculous - it's like saying that we should not discuss slavery in American in negative context until mid-20th century, because majority 19th century and other pre-abolitionist publications did not see it as a problem :/ Wikipedia should represent modern views and scholarship."

I was already looking at book references to the Grand Duchy of Kraków yesterday. I think there's a certain cut off point, for example despite my position on Talk:Minorca vs Menorca, which is pretty much the same as DK and others moving from Cracow to Kraków, I don't see the need to go back to articles in British history which were connected to British Minorca and make them Spanish Menorca. The thing is with Cracow to Kraków it was never British colonial territory (!) so the case for having the Duchy at a British name which is basically just a spelling change is pretty weak. The most persuasive thing you said was the "thin end of the wedge" argument where you said that the Free City of Kraków RM would reopen the can of worms re dozens of articles where peace has been evident since there were many more editors like our friend just blocked. The main angle in favour of Grand Duchy of Kraków is WP:CONSISTENCY, and the fact that histories of Kraków don't give Grand Duchy of Kraków a different name. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Aye. Let me know if you think the above RM is good to go, or if you want to change it? Also, all this discussing made me thirsty for new content, so I wrote Fire of Kraków - enjoy :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I think for a template entry the above may be TLDR. What might be better is a simple one sentence nom, and then COMMENT giving the rest below. Nice article on the fire. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Adam's Bridge

Can we do that? I don't see how Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nsmutte relates. Doug Weller talk 16:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's the same one as last week. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Live at Roseland

Greetings, In ictu oculi. Are you planning on moving "Live at Roseland" to "Live at Roseland (RatDog album)"? If yes, why? And if not, what's the purpose of this, this, and this? — Mudwater ^(Talk) 15:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I am checking how many articles are mislinking for the Beyonce album. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. That sounds worthwhile. Are you planning on putting the two infoboxes back when you're done? — Mudwater ^(Talk) 20:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Depends on what becomes visible when the "What links here" catches up. I don't understand why but it normally takes up to 24 hours. Typically catch a few mislinks this way on ambiguous titles. As redirects are instant changing back afterward doesn't matter either way I think, but will if you think needed. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Esquerra de Menorca logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Esquerra de Menorca logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

You nasty man

Stop trying to deanglicize the English Wikipedia. Our exonyms are part of our linguistic heritage. If you want to speak an international language, I would suggest Esperanto. Let this wiki use the traditional English names. Okay, buddy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.209.140 (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The Loves of Mars and Venus

Sorry, but "The National CV of Britain" is seriously fringe. See this and search the 'book'[9] for, say, Joseph of Arimathea, Brutus of Troy, etc. Doug Weller talk 13:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

You're right, it's total rubbish. I was looking for a better source, but now I understand why I didn't find one. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I thought you'd agree once I pointed it out! Doug Weller talk 14:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Minorca -> Menorca

I have closed the relisted RM as moved; the article is now at Menorca. Since the move was your proposal, I would appreciate your help in updating the hundreds of links to Minorca, and moving any articles and categories still invoking "Minorca", where appropriate. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem. All the best. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Menorca

No issues; I think we just let ourselves go passionately on that issue, but I understand your reasonings for the move and that it would maybe have happened in the future (however, given that as of currently the different M*norca uses seemed to still be tied depending on which theme they were related to, it didn't seem about right to force it without a strong consensus given past precedence and the fact that it should not be Wikipedia the one which establishes new usages). In the end, though, the whole relist issue at least was useful at achieving an higher participation for it, instead of it being based on a rather low-turnout RM compared to previous ones. After the page's move this morning I've already updated many politically-related articles in Spain to reflect the new term and be consistent with it, so no worries. Cheers! Impru20 (talk) 17:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi

You can't just cross out my comments because you disagree with them. I'm not a returning old user, and I don't appreciate the accusation. Academicoffee71 (talk) 02:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello In ictu oculi, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!

Technology update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225

General project update:

• On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
• Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, In ictu oculi. 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, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving 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:Articles to be moved, 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! Alex Shih^Talk 09:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, IIO. I wanted to bring the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Page mover#User:In ictu oculi to your attention. It appears that many editors are concerned about your approach to page moving, so I would like to clarify that if any valid concerns are raised about the use of this access, any administrator can revoke this access per WP:PMRR. I would like to apologize in advance if that happens. Thank you for your understanding, and I would like to express my gratitude for your contribution to the community, whether or not if some of them have been controversial. Regards, Alex Shih^Talk 15:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Do you prefer page mover to be removed? Sorry to trouble you. Alex Shih^Talk 15:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Up to Amakuru. Dohn joe is not an active editor and seems to only sign in for non article content improving edits these days. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Since there wasn't a response from neither party to my further review I think I'll keep things the way it is now. You are right about life being too short. Cheers. Alex Shih^Talk 15:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks. 15:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Özgür Doğruöz (singer)

You might like to weigh in at wp:Articles for deletion/Özgür Doğruöz (singer) as your delete suggestion in the RM discussion is itself about to be deleted. Not necessary IMO but it helps to have all the !votes preserved! Andrewa (talk) 23:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

BET Her

I'll definitely get those WLH links when I have time. I'm just happy I got to perform a network rebranding pagemove the way it should be done (I just went through a painful one with Sprout/Universal Kids where nobody would let me perform it as it should have been). Nate • (chatter) 23:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Native Americans#Requested move 18 September 2017

What are your further thoughts on this? (Respond at linked page). I've posted some dictionary entry links you might want to take a look at. The Transhumanist 17:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Egk operas

Template:Egk operas has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Your support-oppose on The Incredibles

Did you notice that the IP account that started the page move request on The Incredibles which you participated in seems to have opened this single purpose account for the sole purpose of creating the same page move request on multiple Wikipedia pages. Everyone appears to be opposed to these odd requests, and I was wondering if this looked like some version of a poor joke by this IP here: 2A00:23C0:4386:3001:DD1B:17B0:DA48:462E (talk | block log | uploads | logs | filter log). I am ready to remove the move request for the Covenant page which appears to be one of the multiple requests made by that IP account. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes I just noticed about 30 seconds before you told me. I would remove also. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Looks like I should remove the Covenant Talk page addition, and you can do the other film pages. Should it be put on the admin review page? ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 18:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

You could certainly go find and admin if there's another. But as it is so far only four then speedy close requests might be sufficient. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Last Shot (Gregg Hurwitz novel) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Last Shot (Gregg Hurwitz novel). Since you had some involvement with the Last Shot (Gregg Hurwitz novel) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mayuresh K 15:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Towie Castle

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Towie Castle requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Lotus

Please be more careful when you reorganize disambiguation pages. In March, you created a section "Other brands" on this page, with entries including three named vessels, a fictional character, and a statistics theorem. These are not "brands", and readers looking for these entries would be very surprised to find them there. If there is no appropriate section for a disambiguation entry, it should go in an "Other uses" section at the bottom of the page. Thanks, —swpb^{T go beyond} 22:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

In March? Probably interrupted by a toilet break. But okay, thanks for the message. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Move review

An editor has asked for a Move review of Grand Duchy of Kraków. Because you participated in the requested move, you might want to participate in the move review. Academicoffee71 (talk) 05:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Coffee problems

Are there any news on whether a certain editor has been confirmed as a sock or not? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello In ictu oculi, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

• Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

• The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Orizuru Osen DVD cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Orizuru Osen DVD cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Another editor kindly provided a still instead of DVD cover, well done In ictu oculi (talk) 12:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Source for Die Geisterinsel libretto date?

I saw your edit to Template:The Tempest. What's the source for the year of Friedrich Wilhelm Gotter's Die Geisterinsel libretto? I'd like to get that source added to Die Geisterinsel. Peaceray (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

It's in the Schiller-Goethe correspondence, but https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=45EgKFdOXdAC&pg=PA214 suggests it was shown to Mozart earlier. Will check it. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Filippo Maria Bressan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Filippo Maria Bressan 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/Filippo Maria Bressan 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. Primefac (talk) 13:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Film

Hai, I have split Kerala State Film Award (Special Jury Award) per the discussion, and opened a similar discussion to split the article National Film Award – Special Jury Award / Special Mention (Feature Film). Would you care to join.? --Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 09:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The book by Fuentes is available in English

Xx236 (talk) 14:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Ana Gabriel

Good day. I notice that at Template:Ana Gabriel, you disambiguated Pecado Original, Silueta and Tradicional. Is there a reason that you did NOT move the articles to the new locations? Thanks! --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines; "Large talk pages become difficult to read, strain the limits of older browsers, and load slowly over slow internet connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." - this talk page is 151.1 KB. See Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. If you have any questions, place a {{help me}} notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Knowledge & Innocence.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Knowledge & Innocence.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Adam9007 (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Knowledge & Innocence.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Knowledge & Innocence.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Visitor (Neil Young album).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Visitor (Neil Young album).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

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

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

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

Broken links

Hello! I've noticed that you redirected the page "Auf Wiedersehn" to a different location today: [10]. Did you see that you broke 7 incoming links? Would you fix all of them, please?

By the way, I would agree to renaming the article "Auf Wiedersehn (album)" to "Auf Wiedersehn (Demis Roussos album)". You can request speedy deletion of the latter page if you want. But please, don't rename the article to "Auf Wiedersehen (...)" or "Auf Wiederseh'n (...)". The cover says "Auf Wiedersehn", so the current title is the only correct one. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Thought I'd caught most of them (I had, there is only 1). Takes time to update. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

header level of discussion

Please stop changing the header level of this discussion. Its a section of extended discussion related to the above page move request, and when that page move request is concluded, that discussion will also be concluded as part of the same. By changing the header, you're inviting the discussion to not be closed when the page move request is done. -- Netoholic @ 00:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Good point, despite the fact that it's the wrong place, certainly closing it would be good, hadn't thought of that. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

but masculinist historiography has twice ...What?

Xx236 (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Would you be so kind to correct Marjan (film)? Xx236 (talk) 07:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello In ictu oculi, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
• Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

• If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

• A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
• Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

• ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
• The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jill Barklem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Winter Story (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 10:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Weinberg operas

Template:Weinberg operas has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Reimann operas

Template:Reimann operas has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 18:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Nicolai operas

Template:Nicolai operas has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Boesmans operas

Template:Boesmans operas has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Stop stalking me now

I told you I would get an administrator involved if you did not leave me and what I create alone only a day ago and yet you're still at it, targeting recent redirects I've created. There is no other way you would have found these if I had not recently created them. Sun & Moon, Mama Always Told Me, Je te promets. All still on my watchlist. I'm informing an administrator. Drop your issues with me now. Find better things to do. Ss112 23:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I am not going to take a position in this matter (for now). But I was asked by Ss112 to have a word. In this case my advice is directed to both of you. Take a deep breath. Try to assume good faith. Try to be sensitive about how the other might be looking at things, especially if you are tinkering with their edits while at the same time remembering that we don't OWN anything on here. If you are having a disagreement or a broader clash of vision/personality try to work something out so you can both continue to improve the project w/o stepping on each other's toes. Wikipedia is a big place and you are both experienced editors. It should not be that hard to find ways of working with, or if necessary, around one another. Speaking from experience, the one thing I strongly advise is to avoid reaching the point where communication breaks down and your disagreement ends up on one of the drama boards. Happy endings there are not common. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: totally fine, but there is a latent problem here. I was just going to say several active song editors do this (create additional redirects pointing users at one particular modern song on an album when inevitably with 70 years of popular music means there will almost always be other songs for generic titles) and I was going to say "look here's another example", picking the recent Taylor Swift album at random, and unfortunately it just happens to not be by another but by this editor, which I didn't expect, because it wasn't found from the individual editor's history (it's some time ago). So how about this. When I see a misdirect, pointing readers at one current album, if it's by this particular editor I'll leave it, but if it's by other editors I'll fix it. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

That sounds fine. Alternatively maybe you could just drop a friendly fyi note on Ss112's page and let them know you have a concern and let them deal with it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that IIO, and I myself will try to search a bit more and disambiguate to avoid problems like this. Ss112 01:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Goodo, thanks. In all fairness to yourself, I do realize that it is not always easy to find other topics. Those four examples above "Sun & Moon", "Mama Always Told Me", "Je te promets" might not be immediately obvious. I have made the mistake myself. But, when it's something really generic like "look here's another example", it is very easy to check using the right hand top Wikipedia internal string search. Alternatively the format [TITLE (ARTIST song)] is absolutely guaranteed to not cause any misdirect problems and has the added advantage of being picked up clearly in a Google search --- I presume your objective is to help users get from Google to the correct album article. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, that comment about format wasn't very clear. What I meant was King of My Heart or King of My Heart (song) both run a high risk of misdirects, particularly as the misdirect can easily occur in 2018 2019 2020 as Wikipedia grows. This is one of the issues even when editors have exhaustively checked, they can't know what else is coming out next month. But there's no way King of My Heart (Taylor Swift song) can ever cause a misdirect, and it shows up more visibly on a Google search or Wikipedia search. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Wishing you both the joy of the feast... "And suddenly there appeared with the angel a great multitude of the heavenly host, praising God and saying: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men of goodwill!” -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings".  :) BOZ (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!

★Trekker (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Christmas, hope you're having a relaxing time during this period and that next year will be even better for us all here.★Trekker (talk) 13:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Hello In ictu oculi, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018. Happy editing, JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Orphaned non-free image File:Jewelry Box (Shizuka Kudo album).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Jewelry Box (Shizuka Kudo album).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited General Terán, Nuevo León, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Terán (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)