This is anarchive of past discussions withUser:Colin M.Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on thecurrent talk page.

Welcome!

Hello, Colin M/Archives, andwelcome to Wikipedia! Thank you foryour contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being aWikipedian! Pleasesign your messages ondiscussion pages using fourtildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check outWikipedia:Questions, ask me onmy talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place{{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!Ironholds (talk)23:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

23:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

12:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

You havea response.—Vchimpanzee • talk •contributions •21:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently editedRats, Lice and History, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pagesFrench andGerman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links areusually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles.(Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)09:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I saw you changed the capitalization atDelgamuukw. I started a discussion about thishere.Sancho06:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments atWP:GAR. It is an often neglected area, so having some well thought out points made is very useful.AIRcorn (talk)20:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

My pleasure! I only recently started doing (individual) GA reviews, so I figured reading other people's comments at GAR would be helpful in calibrating my understanding of the GA criteria to match the community consensus.Colin M (talk)21:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The term "infobox wars" was coined in 2005, and many carry wounds, it seems. Mine datefrom 2013. Much ado about almost nothing: we tried to implement the new{{infobox opera}}, and faced resistence. By now, the infobox is transcluded 1022 times. I guess we won ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk)22:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Infobox wars, eh? It's fascinating all the little controversies and debates that go into making the sausage that is Wikipedia. I would legitimately love to read a book about this kind of thing.Colin M (talk)23:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

How about writing that book. - I met these wars in 2012 only, - there was peace in the quiet corner of musical compositions where I worked for the first years here. Then on Bach's birthday in 2013, Ientered the drama zone ;) - Now I could almost find it amusing if only we hadn't losta very competent user over that discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk)08:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

I would like to let you know that the user you are reviewing this Ep for has not edited in a long time on wikipedia. Do you mind if I step up and do the necessary changes in order to try to meet GA requirements?MarioSoulTruthFan (talk)17:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

@MarioSoulTruthFan: thank you for the kind offer! Sure, that would be very much appreciated. FYI, I actually posted on the noticeboards of a couple wikiprojects asking for help, andgot an offer fromBrandt Luke Zorn, though I haven't heard from them on the review page yet. I'm happy if either or both of you are able to help out. (There's no rule that says there should be exactly one editor responding to GA review comments)Colin M (talk)15:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I've responded to your edits on thegood article review for Bara (genre). Apologies for the delay in getting to them. Thanks for taking the time to reivew the article!Morgan695 (talk)17:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again for taking the time to review the article. I really appreciate it!Morgan695 (talk)16:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

"Yay, new articles!"

Thank you for quality articles, beginning in 2007 with trampolinistJason Burnett toThe Explorers Club (play) in 2019, for GA reviewing, such asWhy Did You Do That?, for uploadingcover art, for "It gives valuable information about the topic in a succinct form.", for a user page decorated with the enigmaticAmerican opssum in baby grand piano, - you are anawesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk)18:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Aw shucks, thank you for the kind words! It means a lot.Colin M (talk)15:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, love it! I gave some succinct form info toGeorg Katzer, - interesting and predictable what happened. --Gerda Arendt (talk)16:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

A year ago, you were recipient no.2202 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk)06:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Check outthis revised move discussion.Interstellarity (talk)16:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm inclined to have it in the lead because a major point about Charles V is that he had four inheritances derived from his four grandparents. So we explain why he had Spain (castile + aragon) and Austria + Burgundy within the HRE. Otherwise people read and don't get that he was the product of a dinasty marriage between two people themselves products of dinasty marriages. It's pretty common for people to mistakenly assume that he got Austria directly from his father or that he got the Netherlands via spain.Barjimoa (talk)10:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, Colin M. Happy Friday! I updated myCommercial activity draft over at the Reddit Talk page based on your feedback. Pinging you here in case you didn't see it. Let me know if you have any questions.16912 Rhiannon (Talk ·COI)20:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi again! In case you hadn't seen, I wanted to let you know that I've posted anew request on the Reddit Talk page. This time, I'm hoping to clean up and improve the organization of theControversies section. Would you have some time to take a look? Thanks in advance!16912 Rhiannon (Talk ·COI)01:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did atTalk:Western African Ebola virus epidemic. Your edits appear to bedisruptive and have been or will bereverted.

• If you are engaged in an articlecontent dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or thearticle's talk page, and seekconsensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia'sdispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of therelevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia'sAdministrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia'spolicies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result inloss of editing privileges.being disruptive on talkpage for no clear reason,Ozzie10aaaa (talk)21:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa: So this is interesting:

If you are engaged in an articlecontent dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or thearticle's talk page, and seekconsensus with them.

Because I feel like that's literally what I've been trying to do over and over. Look atthis talk page section where I'm basically talking to myself for two weeks. Key phrases include:

• I'm hoping you can explain in more detail
• If you want to revert my bold change, that's fine, but that should give way to adiscussion
• please provide a justification
• Let's discuss rather than edit war.
• Let's just discuss it. If we still can't reach consensus after discussing, we can seek a third opinion.

I wouldstill love to discuss this template thing, but you need to pick up the (metaphorical) pen. I've been pinging you on the talk page and trying to get a discussion going, but other than one sentence 2 weeks ago, you haven't said a word.Colin M (talk)00:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedJuan de Cartagena, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageCastile (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)14:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you toreview other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located atSpecial:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located atSpecial:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

TonyBallioni (talk)05:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedQue Sera, Sera (Whatever Will Be, Will Be), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageThe Man Who Knew Too Much (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)20:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Rarely have seen a more clear, fair or efficient close.Martinevans123 (talk)19:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words :). Hope others involved will see it the same way. That was actually my first time doing any kind of formal close, so I was a bit nervous about it.Colin M (talk)20:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. We'll probably get a new one opening there before long. I expect my thanks above will be seen as "post-close retrospective canvassing".Martinevans123 (talk)20:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed you did some moves involvingTruth Hurts and other articles with the same (disambiguated) title. Right now the bare phrase redirects toTruth Hurts (singer) (with no hatnote link to dab page). Based onthe stats you cited in your edit summaries, I'm guessing this is not what you intended. But not sure if you meant for it to go to the Lizzo song or the dab page.Colin M (talk)00:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Please see comment onTalk:Truth Hurts (singer). Cheers.In ictu oculi (talk)07:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the breath of sanity at the Amadeus RFD. I don't understand what concept of "primary topic" the others are relying upon. --В²C☎00:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Things are looking up!. --В²C☎17:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I am trying to introduce the reasons why you have to use the name of Magellan-Elcano Expedition, but when I give it to you, my text is not entered.

Is there a problem in the talk box? In other discussions it does let me publish what I have written, but in this case no.Jacob34T (talk)10:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the Talk box "The name of the article should be changed" is somehow blocked.

If you can fix it or unlock it please do it. As a summary I would like to give the arguments as to why "Magellan-Elcano expedition" is a more correct name because it is the official name agreed by Portugal and Spain, and presented at UNESCO.

But it doesn't seem that that particular Talk box lets me enter text. Thanks in advance Colin.Jacob34T (talk)11:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jacob34T: Hi Jacob, there shouldn't be anything preventing you from adding to that talk section. You might want to try thehelp desk? If you describe the steps you're taking when you try to edit the page, and what happens, someone should be able to help you out.Colin M (talk)17:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

When I send the message Wikipedia tells me that there is an error and that it cannot be saved.Jacob34T (talk)15:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

If you prefer, I can give you a summary of what I want to send. Portugal and Spain have agreed on the name to refer to this trip and presented it to UNESCO to be considered a world heritage site. And I have also tried to send writers of different languages who also use the Magellan-Elcano terminology.

A greeting.Jacob34T (talk)15:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Colin, It would seem that in the discussion to change ASICS to Asics, really only one source was used to support the move. And while it is a great source (the NY Times), it was by one source. If you look at most trade magazines (Outside Magazine, Fitness Magazine, Hype Beast, Competitor Magazine, Believe In The Run, Rock n Roll Marathon series, RoadTrailRun.com etc) or industry events and shows such as The Running Event in Austin Texas every year, and really countless other sources, you will find that it is correctly ASICS not Asics. If you go to their Facebook page, Twitter, and web site it's ASICS, ASICS, ASICS. You wouldn't write "Nasa", we always write NASA. It is even mentioned in the main ASICS article that it is an acronym or "initialism". Whether or not a certain percentage of the population is aware of this should be a moot point. Accuracy is what should matter.Track-Vol (talk)01:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey@Track-Vol:, so a few thoughts:

• If you think the move was incorrect, you're welcome to open anotherWP:RM. Sometimes people get grouchy about RMs that are opened soon after a previous RM on the same topic was closed, but if you have some new information that you think was missing from the previous discussion, a new RM should be fine. I for one would be happy to consider any new evidence with an open mind.
  • However, the relevant policy,WP:TITLETM says to use standard formattingunless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark, which is a pretty high threshold to meet. If you do decide to open an RM, I would think about how you can demonstrate that "ASICS" is unambiguously the most common spelling. (Reviewing Google News just now, it seemed to me like a pretty close call)
• How official company sources spell the name is of pretty low importance (for the purposes of naming). SeeWP:OFFICIALNAME andMOS:TM.
• The acronym angle is interesting. But AFAIK, we don't have a policy that says if a title is an acronym, it must be rendered in all caps.Hamas,Nasdaq, andRadar are examples that show this. I do think it's relevant that most people aren't aware that it's an acronym - maybe only insofar as this makes them less likely to write it in full-caps, and ultimately affects RS usage.
• Setting aside the title for a moment, my reading ofMOS:TM is that fanciful formatting is even less tolerated in the body than it is in the title. WhereasWP:TITLETM says "only use the trademarked spelling if it's demonstrably the most common in independent RS",MOS:TM says "Look at the styles used by independent RS and pick the one that most closely resembles standard English". There's no question that "Asics" is commonly used in RS (even if it's not necessarily themost common), so I think the running text of the article should definitely use "Asics".Colin M (talk)02:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I have added the missing informations of the leade ofCharles V, Holy Roman Emperor in the article.Barjimoa (talk)10:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Colin, I am attempting to revertIHeartRadio Canada to the previous nameBell Media Radio that ViperSnake151 moved in May 2019, but I can't get it to work.

I use the Draft namespace and enter the in the value "Move/Bell Media Radio", correct?

Can you take a look and possibly do it for me?

I've issued an RfC on the Talk Page and I'd like to revert to the previous name pending outcome of RfC, asBarrelProof did withCanadian Tire Financial Services. BarrelProof, feel free to "chime in" or take the lead here.

Thanks,Doug— Precedingunsigned comment added byDmehus (talk •contribs)00:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Colin M. You have new messages atTalk:Surrogacy.
Message added 16:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC). You canremove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tamravidhir (talk)16:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

You're obviously new to this website, but it's standard protocol to list former and current channel names in bold on an article. Learn the rules and stop being disruptive.MarcoPolo250 (talk)21:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@MarcoPolo250: If you think I'm a newbie, you shouldn'tWP:BITE me!

You're right, I'm not familiar with this rule. Could you provide a link to where it's documented? You might be thinking ofWikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting#Article_title_terms, but that only applies to thefirst occurrence of the name in the article. In this case,CTV Drama Channel andBravo are already bolded in the intro.Colin M (talk)21:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		With cordial thanks.Niggle1892 (talk)00:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Niggle1892: Thanks! It was really heartening to see the community rally around saving those articles. And I applaud you for your equanimity throughout the whole process. I'm not sure I could have kept in such good spirits if I was blindsided with 50 AfD nominations!Colin M (talk)16:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I have gathered some examples of DIFFCAPS atUser:Crouch, Swale/DIFFCAPS and some examples of PLURALPTS atUser:Crouch, Swale/Plural PT. As can be seen there are cases like Cricket where another entity is primary for the singular but the plural redirects to the singular of the common noun, notice that while "crickets" in plural form appears over 100 times inCricket (insect), "crickets" appears 0 times inCricket, similarly a Google image search for "cricket" returns only the sport but for "crickets" it returns only the insect. With PLURALPT while I agree readers and editors are more likely to use the singular I'd still suggest that except in clear cut cases its usually not a good idea to make something else primary since at minimum PT#2 would likely favour the noun.WP:PLURALPT anyway gives the example ofCars redirecting toCar despite the existence of the film and other media. In any case the guideline does suggest that the article titled "Car" is a mull match for "Cars" on the other hand whileBrown might be a contender for "Browns" I don't think its a full match but actuallyShades of brown is a better link (but not necessarily primary).

On the other hand DIFFCAPS does seem to suggest that unlike plurals, topics that are not proper nouns are by default not full matches for terms that have subsequent capitals as long as the noun isn't correctly or commonly written in the upper case. In other words unlike the cars example,Duck sauce andDuck Sauce are not considered to be primary over each other since only 1 is a proper noun. On the other hand if (as you notedhere) the lower case is very popular/significant its probably safer to have a DAB at the upper case. Indeed people could still think the general concept will be atTotal War for example but given as you noted the TV series gets over double views it seems unlikely most people searching with a capital "W" want the general concept.

Sea urchin is an interesting example sinceSea Urchin redirects there and there isSea Urchin (disambiguation) however none of the others on the DAB appear to be called plain "Sea Urchin" so that's probably correct. ButSea urchins redirects to the animal butSea Urchins is about the TV series which seems correct since while the animal is a full match for the plural, its not for the capital "U".Crouch, Swale (talk)17:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: that all sounds pretty reasonable to me. Was this prompted by any particular discussion, or just something that's been on your mind?

btw, if you're interested in expanding either of those lists, perhaps I can plug my own little tool:RMStats. One thing it can do is list RMs in which a certain policy shortcut has been mentioned in the discussion. Sohttps://tools.wmflabs.org/rmstats/policies/WP:DIFFCAPS will give you a wealth of examples of DIFFCAPS cases, and similarly forhttps://tools.wmflabs.org/rmstats/policies/WP:PLURALPT (the data hasn't been updated in a couple months, so it won't have very recent cases).Colin M (talk)17:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't prompted by any discussion in particular though you're comments with regardingDockers might be a point. Yes indeed I've been looking at that tool, funnily enough I tried to find it about a week ago by looking at the what links here from the talk page namespace toBird Box for you're post and after finding the tool from putting "tool" into my browser I found thepost.Crouch, Swale (talk)18:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Cool! It makes me very happy to hear that at least one (other) person has found it useful :)Colin M (talk)18:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks yes indeed I have found it useful. Would you agree with the point that the plural form of topics that would be at the plural form (if WP used plurals) are always full matches for the purpose of PT determination (even though we can discount for people expecting them to be singular) but different capitalization are not treated as full matches for the purpose of PT determination? An interesting way to see is if you look at Commons categories, for exampleCommons:Category:Bridges andCategory:Bridges are about the structure butCommons:Category:Bridge andCategory:Bridge are DAB pages. But note that category redirect don't work that well anyway since you have to click through them anyway so DABs are usually preferred anyway.Crouch, Swale (talk)18:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Hm, I don't think I would agree with that. Or at least I would say you could just as easily switch it around and say the same thing about diffcaps, i.e.

the title case form of topics that would be at the title case form (if WP used title case) are always full matches for the purpose of PT determination (even though we can discount for people expecting them to be sentence case)

It's not immediately obvious to me whether, on average, the strength of users' expectations that titles will be in sentence case is greater or less than the strength of their expectations that titles will be in the singular form.In general, for a given topic at title "Foo bar", I would say that only a small fraction of users seeking that topic will search for "Foo bars"or "Foo Bar", and that should be taken into account when determining primary-ness vs. another topic which is very likely to be searched for in the title case or pluralized form.Colin M (talk)18:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

That is a reasonable counter point, indeed some readers would expect Title Case, but the guidance at PLURALPT says that plurals "normal"(ly) redirect to the singular with with SMALLDETAILS that the're "usually sufficient" (I wouldn't give too much wight to Friendly Fire since that seems to have been a result prior to clarify there) but indeed we should be careful about putting an obscure topic at a Title Case name since it could still astonish people. TheGreen Card case andFireworks are examples of possible upper case and where we have chosen to use the plural.Crouch, Swale (talk)18:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The reason that plurals normally redirect to the singular is that usually there does not exist any topic that would want to occupy the plural title. The sentence immediately after that quote is:For instance,Chairs is aredirect page, which takes readers directly toChair. That's because there's nothing listed atChair (disambiguation) which is called "Chairs". It's probably also true that for most sentence case titles, the title case version redirects to the same place, for the same reason - because if someone searches for, e.g.List of Waterfalls, there's no other topic thanList of waterfalls that they could possibly be searching for.

"Plurals normally redirect to the singular" is not the same thing as saying that if there's a topic whose ideal title is "Foobar" and another topic whose ideal title is "Foobars" then usually the first topic will be primary for both titles. (By "ideal title" I mean the title we would put that article at if disambiguation weren't a concern)

btwGreen Card is a slightly unusual case in that some non-trivial fraction of RS do capitalize it, so it's a less ideal candidate forWP:DIFFCAPS disambiguation than a phrase that is obviously just a common noun phrase (e.g.sea urchins vs.Sea Urchins).Colin M (talk)22:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes that's the case for chairs but the "textbook" example given for primary topics is "Cars" that still redirects toCar despite the film getting 46,791 (compared to 73,884 for "Car") and other media with that name [[1]] on the other hand the textbook example for DIFFCAPS wasRed Meat despite the fact thatRed meat got over 71 times the views and there's other media with that name. Now I think with Cars it would probably indeed be better per the guideline to retarget "Cars" toCar (disambiguation) (or make it a separate DAB) given the quote about readers being used to using singular but the fact that "Car" is primary is good evidence that we usuallydo redirect the plural to the singular even when there's media with that name. The point about "ideal title" is also interesting, this was debated in cases likeWorcester andNorfolk where it was argued that because ofWP:USPLACE the American cities are at their best titles and therefore reduces conflict with the plain name.

Green Card shows an example of where a term is sometimes capitalized and therefore could be considered a full match. However forFriendly fire it isn't written with a capital 2nd "F" at all in the article text while the plural form appears 77 times in the articleCar.Crouch, Swale (talk)08:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Since you participated inthis discussion about disambiguation pages just shy of two months ago, would you be willing to voice your thoughts onthis move discussion that deals with the same issue? I believe you would have something to say about it.Eventhorizon51^(talk)19:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I've gone for that one and launched the proposal atTalk:climate change#Renaming this article to solve confusion. Keeping my fingers crossed that the discussion will be constructive and lead to a conclusion.Femke Nijsse (talk)20:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I couldn't resist the temptation to thank you for the change onThank You. It was a solid edit. —ShelfSkewedTalk05:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you aDobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread theWikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎)00:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Well that's a new one. Thanks :)Colin M (talk)15:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Greetings, thanks for your comment at the RM proposal. If the proposal carries (making "climate change" a redirect to the new titleClimate change (general concept)) we do plan to later list "climate change" atWP:Redirects for discussion)

I noticed in your comment you seem to agree the status quo has a PRIMARYTOPIC problem, yet you describe the parenthetical disambiguation that would solve that issue as "unnecessary". Could you please elaborate? Specifically, if you think there is a ptopic problem, why characterize parenthetical disambiguation that solves this problem as "unnecessary"? Since the answer may benefit the closer, please consider appending some clarification to your earlier notvote at article talk. Thanks!NewsAndEventsGuy (talk)19:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for such a speedy update at the main thread!NewsAndEventsGuy (talk)12:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, in myown userspace I have started a table in which I am trying to super-succinctly summarize the Not-Votes and perspectives that have been raised. This is a work in progress, but I have at least finished my initial data-entry for what you've said. If you would like to me change anything, please use the talk page attached the table. Thanks!NewsAndEventsGuy (talk)12:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Really there are rules about when you can add a track list template to song's infobox? I didn't knew! :O infsai (dyskusja)21:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

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 atthe 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)

On the talk page for JWB, I saw that you've made a fork of JWB with a function to get pages from searching for content within them, stored atUser:Colin M/scripts/JWB annotated.js. How can I use this script? It would be great to have for the bot I am trying to get approved (and am pretty sure will be approved in some form) that is designed to edit links to specific sites on pages. How can I use this script? Will it work if I just copy and paste the code intoSpecial:MyPage/common.js? Thanks!DemonDays64 |Tell me if I'm doing something wrong :P23:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

JWB tells users to put a thing loadingUser:Joeytje50/JWB.js/load.js on common.js—apparently it is a necessary page for using the script. Could you please makeUser:Colin M/scripts/JWB annotated.js/load.js so people can use your script easily? Thanks!DemonDays64 |Tell me if I'm doing something wrong :P23:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@DemonDays64: The loader I was using for testing my fork is atUser:Colin M/scripts/JWB annotated.js/loader.js. (Though my intention was not to maintain it as a stand-alone alternative - I'm still hoping Joeytje50 will merge it into JWB when they have some time.)Colin M (talk)17:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Colin M: ok great!! While I understand it’s not really something I should rely on, it will be great for loading lists for my bot! When I’m at my computer I’ll get it running and try it out. Thanks!!DemonDays64 |Tell me if I'm doing something wrong :P20:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Please take a moment to reviewWikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especiallythe criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to followpost-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects whensuppressredirect is used. This can be done usingSpecial:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments tosecure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover statuscan 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!jni^{(talk)(delete)}17:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

You may want to comment atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of lists of lists (6th nomination). I am sure the article will be kept, and think it does no harm, although it is fairly useless. But I was hoping some new arguments in a favor of lists-of-lists would be given. So far, I just see "lists are useful".Aymatth2 (talk)13:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

What do you make ofSounds (RFD)? In this case I changed the target to the DAB from the audible meaning which was reverted.Category:Sounds was about the geographical meaning before I filed a CFDS. The category for the audible meaning is atCategory:Sound despite the default use of plurals in the category namespace (which means that even if WP used the plural form in the article space the audible meaning still wouldn't include the "s"). The RFD was closed as keep redirecting to the audible meaning. It probably not the same as orange and brown (as noted in the Ravens RM) but indeed can still be known in the plural form (when sound is coming from different places for example). It can also be pointed out that the audible meaning is very common while the geographical meaning is probably less well known even in Scotland. What do you think?Crouch, Swale (talk)17:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: I would agree with targeting it to the DAB in this case, though for a slightly different reason. As the IP editor in that RfD said, there are a number of incoming links to that redirect (61 of them in mainspace), however I don't think they actually checked them, since most of them are actually mistargeted. IMO this is a strong indicator of aWP:NOPRIMARY situation. The most common intended target of these links is actuallySounds (magazine), though I saw at least one intended forSound (geography). And the ones that are correctly referring toSound are, in my view, often instances of overlinking.Colin M (talk)16:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I've cleaned up all the links, there were 30 for the audible meaning (many of which I delinked) but 31 for the magazine! There was only 1 for the geographical meaning, the IP had probably not noticed (just like I hadn't) because most of those articles are about music (which is what the magazine works on). Certainly if this was to come up again this would be a good point. On one side the number of errors is worrying and certainly points to no primary topic but on the other side the audible meaning probably shouldn't be commonly linked (as you have noted) but that's because its known/significant.Crouch, Swale (talk)19:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello - I am reaching out since I know you made the page name change for theAmir Khusrau article after I had put the request. A new request has been placed on theSwaminarayan (spiritual tradition) page to move/rename it to Swaminarayan Sampradaya. Could you please assist in the move? Thank you!Apollo1203 (talk)01:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Apollo1203: once an RM discussion reaches the 'elapsed/backlog' stage (more than 7 days since it was opened, or relisted - your RM is just a day away from this), it usually will be picked up fairly promptly by an uninvolved closer, so it's usually better to just wait for the process to play out, rather than actively seeking out someone to close it. (I'm sure you didn't intend it this way, but you should be aware that seeking out a close from someone who previously closed a discussion in your favour can even be perceived as a form ofcanvassing.)Colin M (talk)00:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Makes complete sense, thank you for the guidance!Apollo1203 (talk)01:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Colin, Happy New Year. I came across the previous name change discussion trying to findSilver Lake College and found out it changed names. I was about to make the necessary move but noticed on the talk page that there was a fairly recent (Nov 2019) Move Request that you closed with a decision not to move. It seems that decision goes against the naming conventions forWP:NC-UNI and other standard move rationale for naming reasons but I wanted to reach out and see if you had any other thoughts? It might also be possible that things have changed since the university initially made the name change? It seems like it is all-in on the new name and there are good external sources that reflect its newWP:COMMONNAME.Bhockey10 (talk)05:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

HiBhockey10. The first point ofWP:NC-UNI isColleges and universities should always be named using thecommon (not necessarily official) name of the institution. The justification given in the nomination of that RM was just that "the college's name has changed" (i.e. the official name has changed). No evidence was provided for the proposed name being theWP:COMMONNAME, nor was the claim even made. As the closer, I can only look at the information that's been presented as part of the RM - it wouldn't be appropriate for me to do my own research to decide whether the move should be performed. Unfortunately, the nom didn't make a policy-based argument for the move, and there were zero comments on the RM, even after it was relisted. So my close was more a finding of "insufficient support to justify the move". It looks like someone has since boldly moved the page. It arguably should have gone through another RM, but I don't blame the mover for just doing it given the lack of participation in the last RM.Colin M (talk)00:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Colin, I appreciate the RE. I was planning to re-list it for move after hearing the rationale for closing the first one. I do see that the original one was not presented with much rationale and since moving articles is complex and shouldn't be taken lightly, I appreciate that you remained impartial based on the evidence provided. Common with small colleges, the talk page didn't get much traffic for anyone to provide further reasoning. In this case, the university accompanied the name change with a full re-branding so there was sufficient evidence perWP:NC-UNI first point onWP:COMMONNAME so it appears that's why another user skipped the RM process. Happy New Year and Happy Editing! --Bhockey10 (talk)00:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Colin, I saw your comment onthe 2019 Tulsa race riot move request and wanted to get a sense of where consensus is on that before bothering people with another move request. Maybe you'd seen recent news stories about permission for excavations in Tulsa? A lot of the opposes (including yours) in that move request seemed to be "not yet" given use in sources; do you think enough time has passed for consensus to have formed or do you think we'd just have a rehash of the July 2019 request?—Wug·a·po·des​19:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleMichael Jackson impersonator is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should bedeleted.

The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Jackson impersonator (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.YorkshireLad  ✿ ^(talk)12:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for trimming down the lists of fictional animals.--Mr Fink (talk)03:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Apokryltaros: my pleasure! The sad thing is that another editor (Thibbs) put in a lot of hard work 10 years ago cleaning up non-notable entries fromList of fictional birds (and similar articles).In 2010, after they finished their cleanup the list entries were virtually all blue links. In the intervening decade, the article gradually accumulatedmassive amounts of cruft. Something I'd really like to figure out is how to prevent that from happening during the next 10 years. Maybe aneditnotice reminding editors to only add entries for notable animals? I like to imagine articles are only improving over time - seeing a case that has clearly gone in the opposite direction worries me.Colin M (talk)03:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The only advice I can offer about preventing cruft-buildup would be to be vigilant about additions and be merciless in reverting non-notable entries. Probably also while warning about ignoring the cautions about notability.--Mr Fink (talk)03:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow response. I think it's also helpful to document these efforts to clean up because during my cleanup period I saw a lot of stiff resistance in certain areas. There are hordes of random single-time IP contributions from the Philippines, etc., who are either trolling or simply ignore the sourcing guidelines and policies. And then there are also established oldguard editors and even individual admins who bristled at the idea that sources were required even forstand-alone lists. I eventually gave up because I was getting so much pushback that it wasn't worth it any more. It's frustrating if you don't have anybody to talk to about the issues. So documentation on this problem area would at least help those working in the area to reach out to others. -Thibbs (talk)13:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey Colin M, it looks like you've got some user scripts in use by others that have bare javascript global wg-style variables. These arephab:T72470 deprecated, and while I don't think there's a timeline for their removal, it's been that way for a while. It's usually a straightforward fix, all uses need to usemw.config.get, such as convertingwgTitle tomw.config.get('wgTitle'). There's some more info atmw:ResourceLoader/Migration guide (users)#Global wg variables. They are:

• User:Colin M/scripts/JWB annotated.js
• User:Colin M/gadgets/hollis debug.js

I can take care of cleaning them up for you if you like, just let me know! ~Amory(u •t •c)12:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Amorymeltzer: Sure, if you don't mind cleaning them up, that'd be great! Thanks very much.Colin M (talk)07:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

You're all set! I misread a comment so there wasn't a need to change anything, sorry for the hassle. ~Amory(u •t •c)12:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk)08:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda :)Colin M (talk)18:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the articleThe Chameleon (magazine) you nominated forGA-status according to thecriteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.Message delivered byLegobot, on behalf ofVaticidalprophet --Vaticidalprophet (talk)15:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the articleSunshine & Health you nominated forGA-status according to thecriteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.Message delivered byLegobot, on behalf ofMikehawk10 --Mikehawk10 (talk)04:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

The articleThe Chameleon (magazine) you nominated as agood article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting thegood article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. SeeTalk:The Chameleon (magazine) for issues which need to be addressed.Message delivered byLegobot, on behalf ofVaticidalprophet --Vaticidalprophet (talk)04:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

They were very useful, and I've incorporated almost all of them.--Brett (talk)14:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I believe everything has been addressed now.--Brett (talk)18:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the articleThe News (musical) you nominated forGA-status according to thecriteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.Message delivered byLegobot, on behalf ofSome Dude From North Carolina --Some Dude From North Carolina (talk)22:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the articleThe Hobby Directory you nominated forGA-status according to thecriteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.Message delivered byLegobot, on behalf ofUrve --Urve (talk)13:01, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The articleThe Hobby Directory you nominated as agood article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting thegood article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. SeeTalk:The Hobby Directory for issues which need to be addressed.Message delivered byLegobot, on behalf ofUrve --Urve (talk)14:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I've nominatedEnglish interjections for GA status. I hope you will consider reviewing it.--Brett (talk)15:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

This is a neutral notice sent to all non-bot/non-blocked registered users who editedWikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics in the past year that there is a new request for comment atWikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics § RfC: Where should so-called voiceless approximants be covered?.Nardog (talk)10:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Colin. I'm HHH, I have seen your complains in The Bella Twins article. English is not my first language, so it's hard to write a GA. However, I started [[2]], where I'm rewriting the article. Do you like it? I think it's more in-universe free and right to the point. --HHH Pedrigree (talk)08:55, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this up! I've replied on the GA page.Colin M (talk)16:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Colin M, I just wanted to let you know that I haveadded the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload onnew page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, seeWikipedia:Autopatrolled. However, you should consider adding relevant wikiproject talk-page templates, stub-tags and categories to new articles that you create if you aren't already in the habit of doing so, since your articles will no longer be systematically checked by other editors (User:Evad37/rater andUser:SD0001/StubSorter.js are useful scripts which can help). Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing!Chetsford (talk)04:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks!Colin M (talk)07:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	After noticing your edits related to Wi Spa (of which I am appreciative) I noticed your various edits in other areas! Looks like you do a lot of good work ranging from cleanup to expansion to discussion!~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠17:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Gwennie-nyan: Wow, thank you! This is going straight on the fridge :)Colin M (talk)17:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Cheers! A well deserved fridge magnet! Thanks for keeping cool and bettering the project.Firefangledfeathers (talk)18:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for uploadingFile:Real Housewives of New York City s9 opening clip.webm. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim 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 (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)17:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Being that nobody else has volunteered in a few days to be the third person on a panel, do you want to begin discussing/making the close with me and have it be a 2-person close? I can make a user subpage for use in draft it. —Mikehawk10 (talk)03:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mikehawk10: too bad no-one else has volunteered. I wonder if there's anywhere else we could post a notice? But yeah, given how long the closure request has been open, it does seem like we should get started soon. If you want to make a page, that would be great. Given the length of the RfC discussion, it might take me a few days before I'm ready to post my initial notes.Colin M (talk)04:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mikehawk10: I have some initial rough thoughts written out. I tried to focus on summarizing the main arguments and talking through how much weight to assign them. Let me know when you've created a subpage and I'll be happy to post what I have. (Though I would suggest not reading my notes until you've had a chance to take your own independent reading of the situation. I've also avoided reading the initial close and the discussions around it to avoid any priming - though I do want to read through that at some point.)Colin M (talk)22:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Mikehawk10/Sandbox/RfC_closure_drafts is a suitable page. I'm currently in the process of writing an RfC close for another page, so I'll put some of my observations on the MoS discussion over the next day or two. —Mikehawk10 (talk)02:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Onel5969. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed,Muh Dikhai, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them onmy talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via thePage Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Onel5969^{TT me}16:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)