User talk:Obi2canibe/archive23

Home

Talk

Email

Contributions

Articles

Stats

Images

Commons

New Page Review newsletter November 2019

Hello Obi2canibe,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 804 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools

• It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
• It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.

Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes

• Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
• Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.

Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Theatres in Gampaha District

A tag has been placed on Category:Theatres in Gampaha District requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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 deleted 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Cultural buildings in Gampaha District

A tag has been placed on Category:Cultural buildings in Gampaha District requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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 deleted 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. UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter December 2019

Reviewer of the Year

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	Rosguill (talk)	47,395	Patrol Page Curation
2	Onel5969 (talk)	41,883	Patrol Page Curation
3	JTtheOG (talk)	11,493	Patrol Page Curation
4	Arthistorian1977 (talk)	5,562	Patrol Page Curation
5	DannyS712 (talk)	4,866	Patrol Page Curation
6	CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk)	3,995	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	3,812	Patrol Page Curation
8	Boleyn (talk)	3,655	Patrol Page Curation
9	Ymblanter (talk)	3,553	Patrol Page Curation
10	Cwmhiraeth (talk)	3,522	Patrol Page Curation

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

Redirect autopatrol

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Gampaha District culture

A tag has been placed on Category:Gampaha District culture requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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 deleted 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. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Capitalization

Hi. I'm failing to understand your recent reverts of the moves at Second Susana Díaz government and Díaz Ayuso government. You only cite WP:NCCAPS, yet you fail to take into account that these are proper names. This is why, for example, People's Party and not "People's party", and Spanish Socialist Workers' Party but not "Spanish socialist workers' party". Further, these are capitalized in sources ([1] [2]), as well as the fact that most government articles throughout articles are capitalized due to the fact that they do not refer to a generic "government"-reference, but to the specific Government, as an institution, that was formed. Could you elaborate?

Then there is the issue of the number, though I acknowledge that sources and Wikipedia precedent are very diverse on this; however, in such a situation I believe that WP:CONCISE comes into action. Specially considering that when shown in infoboxes and templates those are referenced as "I" or "II" anyway. Impru20^talk 19:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Impru20: Although they may look like proper names for people who are not familiar with the English language, they are not and as such WP:NCCAPS applies. As for the numbering, the most common naming convention is to use the full ordinal number e.g. First not 1st or I. This is the convention used in most government articles: Fourth Merkel cabinet, Second Johnson ministry, Second Philippe government. I do though accept that there is inconsistency.--Obi2canibe (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

NCCAPS specifically calls for proper nouns to be capitalized. they may look like proper names for people who are not familiar with the English language, they are not The issue is that sources do capitalize them and treat them as proper names. Most Wikipedia articles do treat specific government councils & cabinets as proper names. Cabinets of most many English-language countries do treat them as proper names (i.e. Formation of Donald Trump's Cabinet, 29th Canadian Ministry, 31st Government of Ireland, Morrison Government/Second Morrison Ministry, Sixth Labour Government of New Zealand. That these are lower-cased for some countries does not mean that it is done correctly for those (indeed, some of those, such as Second Philippe government, were originally capitalized but unilaterally moved by one user).

As for the numbering, the most common naming convention is to use the full ordinal number There is not any naming convention on this. As a result, WP:NAMINGCRITERIA (should) apply. Most of the referenced articles would be in violation of these anyway, because of the reasons exposed, as the creation of cabinet articles is pretty much chaotic and disorderly: for example, Fourth Merkel cabinet uses "Fourth" rather than "IV" as you say, but then the article itself puts the original German-language name with the "IV". There is not any guideline-based reason as to why the full ordinal number is used. If you check the pages' historials, you'll see that all German cabinet articles were originally named as "Cabinet [Chancellor] [Roman numeral]". Then someone started creating the Merkel cabinets under different names, and in 2014 all others were moved to match the Merkel cabinets' format (rather than the other way around) without any significant discussion or consensus on the issue. I don't have time right now to check the others in full, but somehow I guess something similar may be happening in many of these. Impru20^talk 20:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Impru20: The issue here is whether these count as proper names or not. If this can be sorted then it's easy to decide whether they should be capitalised or not. My own personal view is that they are not proper names but I have no strong views on this, my main aim is for consistency. I note that there is discussion at Talk:Conte II Cabinet on this issue - this discussion should be opened up so that we can get input from others and have a clear rule on this. cc @Ritchie92:. --Obi2canibe (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I think this issue is generic enough for it to be raised on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@Obi2canibe and Ritchie92: Agree. I think some basic consensus and/or naming convention should be outlined on how to address these articles, in order to bring some order and consistency to this issue. Impru20^talk 16:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ritchie92 and Impru20: Wikipedia talk:Article titles seems to be a good place. WP:POLITICS and related projects ought to be informed to widen the participation.--Obi2canibe (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Category:Principals of Hartley College has been nominated for discussion

Category:Principals of Hartley College, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Category:Principals of Jaffna Central College has been nominated for discussion

Category:Principals of Jaffna Central College, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Towns in Kinniya DS Division

A tag has been placed on Category:Towns in Kinniya DS Division requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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 deleted 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

W. G. M. Albert Silva

Thanks for that the reference cited him as the candidate for the JVP and the only thing I could find for a JVP political party was possibly the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna but that just didn't sound right. The National Liberation Front (Jathika Vimukthi Peramuna) makes much more sense. Thanks. Dan arndt (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020

Hello Obi2canibe,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources

• There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
• A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
• A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
• A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.

Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks

False warning

Please refrain from making abusive or otherwise inappropriate edit summaries, as you did to Christian Reformed Church in Sri Lanka. Your edit summary may have been removed. Please look at pages regarding Civility and Personal attacks in your spare time. Rehman 06:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Tamil tigers

Hi, in the Tamil Tigers article, i put the two prominent assasinations in chronological order. Could you help me understand why you reverted that? PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 00:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry, your good edit was collateral damage in me removing POV edits by other editors. I have now put the assassinations chronological order. I have kept the references at the end of the sentence as this is good practice. I have also left the bit about Research and Analysis Wing out as it's unsourced. Let me know if there are any other issues.--Obi2canibe (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I was honestly wondering if it was collateral or for a reason i didn't understand ;-) Thank you for the doing the task of keeping articles healthy. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 18:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Merger discussion for NSBM Green University

An article that you have been involved in editing—NSBM Green University—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Dan arndt (talk) 23:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

About pictures

Hi, Obi2Caniobe! To be honest, I don't understand what exactly do you have against me, maybe there was an issue back in the past, but long enough for me not to be able to recall, if yes I'm sorry about it. Anyway, first, please stop hiding the warning by Rehman, as it is an administrative warning and there is nothing wrong about it, as your tone towards myself has really been a bit too harsh -- however if you think it's wrong, you are free to request comment at the sysop's noticeboard, but you may not remove the warning yourself, never mind editwarring about it. Second, regarding the pictures, please read my statement first, before edit-warring on several pages. The argumentation which is nothing but "previous picture was better" is not convincing for me and certainly not a legitimate reason to revert. If you don't like a particular picture, please elaborate for each one what exactly is the disadvantage to you. But otherwise, please remember that Wikipedia is a Free encyclopedia, there is no editorial or something that decides what comes in and what not, and surely you alone may not decide it. And you know very well that I usually don't need consensus of several users for any edit, be it a text addition or a picture. So, it is not acceptable what you are trying to do. Maybe also useful for you to read WP:AGF. Thanks! --A.Savin (talk) 01:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@A.Savin: actually, users are perfectly entitled to remove warnings which are issued to them - this is considered an acknowledgement that they have read the warning. stwalkerster (sock | talk) 11:23, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

OK, I take it back regarding the warning (though I'm still convinced that the warning is by no means false and Rehman has every right to issue it and to take appropriate action in case of its violation; the fact that he is Sri Lankan and photographer does not automatically make him "WP:INVOLVED" and I fail to see any other fact that would make it obvious). Anyway, I expect your response regarding the pictures. For each of the pictures you are trying to revert, you please explain, what is the disadvantage in your opinion. Thanks --A.Savin (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Category: People Barred from Public office

Hi Obi2canibe, I was wondering if we could find a common category for people to categorize people barred, removed or expelled from public office to prevent over-categorization per WP:OC. There exist the categories Category:People Removed from office, Category people barred from public office and People expelled from public office. And all more or less mean the same. But I think we look for a term that describes that people of a minority who where in office that where removed from the office by a majority. Barred from office is I think just the one who applied or wants to apply for public office but is/was denied to assume the public office. I'd like to include all of the people expelled from public office in one category. What are your thoughts? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi again, I have found an other argument for our discussion. WP:OVERLAPCAT. Barred from public office how you apply it can be applied for many Kurdish politicians as well, but I until now just included those who were really barred from being elected to public office elected of were elected as MPs or Mayor but where not allowed to assume their posts. I have seen the you on the other side included many politicians who were elected and were allowed to assume their posts.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Paradise Chronicle, I'm sorry for the late response. I appreciate your point regarding over categorisation but, although they may sound the same, the situations that these three categories represent are quite different. Therefore it would be wrong to use just one of them to categorise people who fall into the three different situations. This is what prompted me to create Category:People barred from public office for the Catalan politicians - none of those found guilty at the trial held public office at the time they were sentenced. They couldn't be expelled or removed from an office which they didn't hold.

I support your idea using another category to capture all three situations. I can't think of a terminology that would encompass all three situations so I suggest that these three categories are merged into Category:People barred, expelled or removed from public office. Please take this to WP:CFD.

In respect of your point about who to include, I would suggest we include everyone who was prevented from holding public office/running in elections, irrespective of whether they've held office/contested elections in the past or not.--Obi2canibe (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. While thinking it through already before you answered me, I thought only Junqueras was barred, from him I read. But after now reading other articles and sources as well, others have been barred from office, too. But in some articles like Clara Ponsati, Meritxell Serret, Raül Romeva, and Antonin Comin, I think the category expelled from public office is more appropriate. What do you think? But I agree, all the three categories should stay. At least for now. A no new category to join all the three. I think a category like this would be too vague.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Paradise Chronicle: Raül Romeva did not hold office when he was sentenced so he should not be included in Category:People expelled from public office. Ponsati, Serret and Comin have not been convicted of any crime and have not been removed/expelled from office so they should not be included in any of these three categories.--Obi2canibe (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Obi2canibe: but they were part of the Govern as the Govern of Catalunya was dismissed for having held a democratic vote. Being minister/conseller is executing a public office, being part of the Government or the public administration. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Paradise Chronicle: The Spanish government imposed direct rule on Catalonia - the Catalan minsters weren't expelled from office. There is a difference.--Obi2canibe (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Obi2canibe: Did they step down voluntarily? Of course not. Look what the Spanish government says about the Article 155 of the Spanish constitution in relation of Catalunya. They wanted the power to remove the Government in Catalunya. They were removed because the Spanish government was in the majority and the acting politicians/consellers were in the minority. They even admit it. The "whole" Spanish people... against 90% of Catalunya. I just try to avoid misunderstandings, no harsh feelings.But you say something and I find the contrary. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Paradise Chronicle: We've strayed from the original purpose of this discussion - categorisation - to politics. I am not interested in discussing the legitimacy of the imposition of direct rule. Good night.--Obi2canibe (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

References

April 2020

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for WP:LEGAL. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  User:Ymblanter (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

--Ymblanter (talk) 14:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I unblocked assuming you meant this as a joke. However, IMO, the wording was borderline.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: The bit about instructing my lawyer was certainly a joke (OK, so it won't win Edinburgh Comedy Award). I was pointing that it was Savin who was making the legal threat with this edit. Wouldn't you consider "this is a reason to report you to WMF Legal...if there is no explanation from you in the next few days, I'm going to complain at WMF Legal" to be WP:LEGAL?--Obi2canibe (talk) 14:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The first line of WP:LEGAL talks about external process, so no, it was not a violation--Ymblanter (talk) 14:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ymblanter:Mmm...so no violation of any Wikipedia policy?--Obi2canibe (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

No, I do not see any issues, though nobody of course prevents you from going to WP:ANI and asking this question there.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Nalin Silva

I added an external link to Nalin de Silva and I saw that you have reverted it. I'm a new editor (to english wikipedia). could you please explain me the policy/rule violated by me? Sasithmadu (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sasithmadu, I did not consider the links to comply with WP:EL. For biographies we generally only include official sites. We don't include papers written by academics as there would be numerous which would mean we couldn't keep the links to a minimum.--Obi2canibe (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining.Link is from the "Kalaya.org" is Nalin De Silva's official website. Most articles of it in native language, but link I added was a Englsih article by him on his thoughts on science. Yo can see he have signed in the articles given in the link in this message.Furthermore he is giving information about events of Chinthana centre and he have refer to the site in his newspaper articles written to native language science papers like "Vidusara". So I think there would be no propblem about the authenticity of the site as his official site. if it's the case. I have seen in some Biography articles, notable writings of the subjected person have included in the external links section. article I added maybe the only one written by him on his views on science, which is he is notable for. I thought adding link may be useful to someone finding more. (though link to Kalaya.org is given in the infobox, since the site is in Sinhala language, it may be impossible to find an English article for a non-Sinhalese reader.)Sasithmadu (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Although our preference is for English language websites, if Kalaya.org is de Silva's official website I think it can be included in the external links section even though it is mostly in Sinhala. However, there should be only one link to the website and it should be to the home page. Using Template:URL it could look something like this: Official website

It's good that you are being careful about the authenticity of websites - only use link sites that you have confidence in.

As for articles written by him, MOS:LISTSOFWORKS does allow these to be included in the article but in a "Works" section, not the "External links" section. I note that Nalin de Silva already has a "Bibliography" section which I presume is a list of books/articles written by him. I suggest you rename this section as "Works" and sub-divide the contents into "Books", "Articles" etc. Any entries in the "Works" section shouldn't be just links, they should use Template:Citation.--Obi2canibe (talk) 10:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining things so clearly. I will use most suitable option from the options you have mentioned after thinking about which is better/applicable here. Sasithmadu (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Moreno Government

Hi Obi2canibe. I may not have made myself clear enough when mentioning the "order of precedence", so I'll try to provide you with a clearer explanation. In Spain, members of Governments at all national, regional and local governments are sorted according to what we call "orden de prelación" or "orden de precedencia" ("official order of precedence" being the most similar translation I could find). That order is essential in so far as it defines the line of succession to the presidency in case of temporary illness or incapacity of the President; likewise it sets out the places in which Ministers seat in Parliaments and the order in which they speak in Parliaments or Cabinet meetings. In the Spanish law, this order of precedence is regulated in Royal Decree 2099/1983 and Law 50/1997, article 13. So, given this order is not merely aesthetic but definitely relevant, I suggest you reconsider reverting Moreno Government to my previous edit. As an example, in Sánchez II Government you will see that Ministers of the Spanish national Government are sorted according to its official order of precedence. Sevi95 (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sevi95, I don't dispute the existence of the order of precedence - there are orders of precedence in many countries and in many fields. My concern is that for the ordinary reader, the overwhelming majority (99.99%) of whom aren't aware of the order, the sequence of ordering in the article would seem illogical, random even, whereas sorting in alphabetical order is quite natural.--Obi2canibe (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Obi2canibe. I understand your point of view, but I have a little concern about it: the alphabetical order may be the "natural" one, but it's not technically "correct" . I don't see why the precedence order would seem illogical in this case, when the fact is that in most Wikipedia cabinet articles, Ministers or Members of Government are not sorted alphabetically but according to such orders, such as Trump Cabinet, Second Johnson ministry, Second Philippe government or Cabinet Ramelow I, among many others. Even some Spanish local cabinets are sorted according to the precedence order: see City Council of Madrid. So, why should the articles about regional cabinets of Spain be any different? In addition, it may be mentioned that the alphabetical order may lead to certain inconsistencies: see what happens with Minister Juan Bravo in Moreno Government. If it works for you, a couple sentences above the table could be added in order to explain the precedence order to readers. However, I wouldn't consider it necessary, based on the many examples given before. Regards, Sevi95 (talk) 19:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

The fact that other articles are not sorted alphabetically does not mean they are right. Wikipedia's manual of style for lists mentions that the basic forms of sorting are alphabetical and numerical. Where the list contains dates a chronological format could be used. You'll be hard pressed to find a featured list that isn't sorted using one of these three forms. Where more complex forms are used it should be explicit for the reader. As I have mentioned, the overwhelming majority (99.99%) of readers won't be aware of the order of precedence and any list which uses it would seem be to sorted in a random order.--Obi2canibe (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Where more complex forms are used it should be explicit for the reader. Then, I rescue my idea of making it explicit for the readers, maybe by adding just a couple lines above the table. The fact that most readers are not familiar with orders of precedence should not allow Wikipedia to provide a content that is not factually correct — and the alphabetical order is not, as far as there is an official order of precedence that is established by Law and observed by institutions, has legal implications and thus should be the one featured in an encyclopedia. In addition, the alphabetical order leads to random inconsistencies as well: it's the order of precedence, and not the alphabetical one, that determines that the President comes first and the Vice Presidente comes second and above the rest of Ministers. So, why would you place Moreno and Marin on top of the table, instead of sticking to the alphabetical order for every single person on the table? In the same way, the moment in which there is a replacement in government, the alphabetical order gets broken, thus the entire ording makes no sense: again, check what happens with Juan Bravo in Moreno Government.
You'll be hard pressed to find a featured list that isn't sorted using one of these three forms. Indeed, but is the composition of a government just a random list of people? I think it goes a bit beyond that. The article we're discussing about is named "Moreno Government", not "List of Andalusian Ministers". What I'm trying to say is, it should not get the same treatment given to a list of archaeological sites, for instance. Examples of good articles that do not feature an alphabetical order can be found in Government of Croatia, Cabinet of Singapore and Government of Japan. I hope you will agree with me on the fact that these articles provide better examples, are more similar to the one we're discussing about, than the List of Star Wars starfighters suggested in the manual of style!
The fact that other articles are not sorted alphabetically does not mean they are right. So, are the overwhelming majority of Cabinet/Government articles in the English Wikipedia (99.99%) just wrong? So far, the only examples of alphabetical order in similar articles can be found just in the articles in which you contribute to: Spanish regional cabinets and Sri Lankan national cabinets. Apart from not being factually correct, the alphabetical order is not conventional in similar articles. Whenever similar discussions have taken place, the alphabetical order has either not even been considered an option, as in here or here; or has been immediately deemed not appropriate, as in here.
The overwhelming majority (99.99%) of readers won't be aware of the order of precedence. Do we have any scientific evidence to support that assumption? And even so, is Wikipedia's aim to provide encyclopedical, factual, correct content; or random, "à la carte" information?
Again, I hope we can reach an agreement soon. Regards, Sevi95 (talk) 14:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, the tone of this discussion is deteriorating. I haven't got time to waste in another pointless dispute. If you want to change the article into a random order that only aficionados of Spanish politics will understand, go ahead, I won't stop you. I am here to create encyclopedic content - I am the one who bothered to spend time creating most of these Spanish regional cabinet lists - it's a thankless task as you've clearly demonstrated.--Obi2canibe (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Please, don't get me wrong and assume good faith, Obi2canibe. I was just trying to explain my point of view with examples and a logical reasoning, and I apologise if you ever found my tone to be harsh. Once again, I think "encyclopedical" means "factually correct", and in this particular case, the "factually correct" order is the official, preestablished, conventional, order of precedence. That's it. Apart from that, I appreciate your vast amount of work and hope we can cooperate anytime in the future. Regards and happy editing Sevi95 (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Shortname

Hey, I don’t understand your reverts. For one, the templates are called Shortname, so having the full name seems counterintuitive. Furthermore, the Template:Party shortname shows abbreviations are indeed used. Skjoldbro (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Skjoldbro: It is not counter-intuitive if you look at the examples given at Template:Party shortname. The shortname of the Republican Party (United States) isn't RP or R, it's Republican; the shortname of the African National Congress isn't ANC, it's African National Congress etc.

Infobox election uses the shortname template to generate a link to the party's article. Having the shortname is particularly helpful where parenthetical disambiguation is used in the article's title e.g. Republican Party (United States), Labour Party (UK), as it avoids the parenthesis bit appearing in the infobox.

For Sri Lankan elections we have never used abbreviations in the infoboxes. That's why all the entries in Category:Sri Lanka political party shortname templates use the full name. We need to consistency so if you intend to change one Sri Lankan party's shortname template you need to change all of them otherwise you'll have one party in abbreviation and another with full name in an infobox (this what tipped me of to what you had done).--Obi2canibe (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)