User talk:Frayae/Safn 6

Page AZUPANE-Lagunillas moved to Azupane–Lagunillas

Hello. You moved page AZUPANE-Lagunillas to Azupane–Lagunillas (different capitalization). However, all the sources are consistent that the original capitalization was correct as an initialism. Is there some reason why the new version is preferable, or can it be changed back to agree with the sources? --Gronk Oz (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: You can move it back, or I can move it back for you. All I ask is that you include in the article what AZUPANE is an initialism of. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 09:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Frayae - I would be grateful if you could undo the move. @Isamares: - as requested, could you please update the article to include what AZUPANE stands for (I don't have access to your sources, and I don't read Spanish so I couldn't understand them anyhow.) I suspect it is "La Asociación Zuliana de Padres y Amigos de Niños Excepcionales" (English: Zuliana Association of Parents and Friends of Exceptional Children), but need to confirm that.--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I have restored the article to AZUPANE-Lagunillas now as requested. I will admit that when looking at the sources I could access I made the assumption the Azupane was a word and did not realise it represented an initialism. All fixed now. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:05, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

--Gronk Oz (talk) 04:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done I have added the expansion of the initialism to the section on The school. Also pinging Isamares (talk · contribs). --Gronk Oz (talk) 23:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Draft and talk page move

Hi Frayae! I noticed that you had moved User:ErnestasP to Draft:Plasta (version 2) as the preferred location for AfC submissions, which you are correct about. However, you also moved the user's talk page to the draft talk page, which currently looks like this. This makes it look confusing, as the messages should be on the user talk page, instead of what is now the draft talk page. In addition, the user's talk page itself looks confusing as well. It is a redirect to the draft talk page which contains user talk page messages, but it also contains another message below the redirect. Did you actually mean to move the user talk page, which is what resulted in this? If you didn't, then unfortunately, we can't move the draft talk page back due to the new user talk page message that was left after the move - the best thing I could think of would be a history merge.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 01:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

An unfortunate oversight on my part. I have requested a history merge. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 08:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Great, thanks, and keep up the good work!--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 12:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Elephant Insurance

Hello, Thanks for your contribution in the article. I added additionnal secondary sources to the article. The company is employing about 640 people and it's well known in Virginia. I think it has his place in wikipedia :) I will add additional sources. Best Regards. Experio2018 (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Tesco Direct Logo.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Barnstar

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you! Felix Montana (talk) 21:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

For closing that discussion. It really needed it. Also, thank you for restoring the proverb I used as the close rationale. It may have been a bit of a joke, but it was sooo appropriate. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Women in Iceland review

Hello, Frayae, I've made some comments at Template:Did you know nominations/Women in Iceland. HLHJ (talk) 04:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

World Heritage Site Requested move 27 August 2018

Well, I strongly disagree with your close of the requested move at [1]. Numerically, it was 6:3, but I don't think the supporters had a strong policy-based cause. It takes a pretty strong case to override MOS, and I don't think that "I've never seen it written lowercase" makes one. Further, WP:CONSISTENCY is the weakest of the five criteria, and cuts both ways: List of World Heritage sites could have been moved the other way round. Please reconsider. No such user (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@No such user: The MOS has not been overridden at all, as it clearly tells us to examine capitalization in running text within reliable sources to determine whether an entity is a proper name or not. The evidence was supplied, in the form of ngrams, so all boxes were ticked. Furthermore, this title was stable for the entire lifetime of the article until a poorly attended RM just a couple of months ago, so it's not really as if we're breaking new ground here, just reverting to how things have always been.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Well, I disagree that ngrams are good evidence in this case, and they have been addressed bu Espoo, but the closer's talk page is probably not a place to rehash.
Well, I certainly won't lose sleep over this particular issue, but as principles are at stake, I feel inclined to fuss about it. ;) No such user (talk) 07:19, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I notice that you have closed the page move discussion for the World Heritage site article. As I am one of those in opposition to the move, I am unhappy that you have closed the discussion prematurely because in my opinion there was not a clear consensus. There were 5 supporters (Randy Kryn, The Drover's Wife, Rreagan007, Amakuru, Turtlewong) and 3 opposers (Rodney Baggins, Espoo, No such user [unsigned]) and the arguments had not been fully worked out. As this is such an important decision which will affect a lot of other articles, I am proposing that we take it to RfC but in the meantime I am seeking the opinion of an admin who may be able to over-ride the decision as (1) it was taken prematurely and (2) it was the wrong decision. This is just to let you know what I am doing for the sake of transparency. Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

To specifically reply to Rodney Baggins, I will say this. The RM was listed in the backlog, and when I closed it was two days overdue a close and had not been relisted. The correct procedure to challenge a close is Wikipedia:Move Review. The correct way to try again is to start another RM, although there should be something new brought to the discussion if you do that. You should have informed me of the WP:AN discussion with {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ remember that for next time. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I anticipate that a full reasoning will be of use here, these are my thoughts used in closing.

• In this move, the article is being restored to the long standing title. Other articles on Wikipedia are still consistent with the long standing title, "World Heritage Site".
• I am aware of the MOS guidelines involved, I have recently proposed a move on the same grounds. In that RM, I made it clear the limited value that can be placed on ngram evidence in these situations.
• I feel that as clear a consensus as was going to happen had been achieved. The argument was beginning to be restated, but without additional evidence or improved reasoning. Strictly speaking, more people supported the move than opposed it. All editors are established, there is no canvassing or SPA votes. A close should generally follow the numerical difference.
• It would be acceptable to not count the comment made by The Drover's Wife due to the fact that if she had read the previous RM above which included examples of the term being used lower case, she should not have said Never seen it used with the lower case "s".
• The argument was generally split into two lines of reasoning. One line of reasoning was that the UNESCO official style should be followed. The other was that the common usage in other secondary sources should be followed.
• No reliable secondary sources were presented at all by any participant during the RM. Sources to UNESCO were provided, these show that the UN does generally use lowercase. Sources such as closely affiliated academic blogs mirror the official wording of the UN closely. Independent sources generally do not.
• There is reasonable evidence that "World Heritage Site" is more commonly used than "World Heritage site". This was supported by ngrams, a spot check of unaffiliated heritage organisations also shows this to be true. News sources tend to use World Heritage Site more than other captilisations in a spot check. In the UK, the generic term is used consistently in legislation as "World Heritage Site". In the US, the generic term is used on all applicable governmental sites as "World Heritage Site".
• No evidence was presented to back up the claims that Proper nouns cannot be modified by an indefinite article or a determiner. It was generally refuted that this is an absolute grammatical rule, and if it is then it should be noted that several governments are happy to ignore it in official publications.

I hope this helps. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

One side presented their personal opinions whereas the other side presented both reliable sources and logical arguments based on what a proper noun is and how it behaves grammatically. Here's another reliable source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/World-Heritage-site That site shows how professional writers and copyeditors make a clear difference between proper nouns like World Heritage Convention and World Heritage List and common nouns, including list of World Heritage sites (only with List and Sites when in a heading).

Counting votes is as silly as the votes themselves when they are based on opinion and familiarity with a widespread error instead of on reliable sources, which seem to all use lower case. And even if some reliable sources did use uppercase, that would still be no reason to do so as long as some reliable sources use lower case, as i explained in this argument that was ignored by all supporters of the move:

According to our MOS, we should avoid unnecessary capitalization. Since some reliable sources and carefully edited websites like http://ocean.si.edu/blog/world-heritage-goes-marine and http://whc.unesco.org/en/criteria don't capitalize the last word of "World Heritage site" it's irrelevant that Ngram Viewer finds more hits using capitalization. The whole purpose of having a MOS is that we don't have to find out whether uppercase or lowercase is more common. As long as at least some reliable sources use lowercase, we can and should too. I.e. the decision to capitalize or not is not at all related to deciding which is the most common spelling used to refer to a term. --Espoo (talk) 10:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Frayae, your above summary was very helpful indeed and I take back what I said about the discussion being closed prematurely as this is not a personal criticism. However, I still don't think this issue has been satisfactorily concluded, not just because I disagree with the decision, but simply because there are such strong arguments on both sides and they have not been thoroughly explored and resolved. It does appear that the most obvious next move is to try a Wikipedia:Move Review. I have also been given some advice by an impartial observer who has pointed out that just because the "official" naming convention by UNESCO would persuade us to use lower case 'site', that is not necessarily the correct conclusion to reach if enough reliable sources do things a different way. I am fully prepared to consider this argument if there is sufficient support for ignoring UNESCO's lead and enough evidence to back it up. However, as this is such an important decision, I still believe that it needs to be further discussed before we reach a final conclusion and I hope that all other parties will be reasonable enough to agree with this. Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes. As I explained, the UNESCO site and sources which closely follow it's wording don't capitalise, many other sources do. The consensus is not a common name issue. The consensus is that World Heritage Site is treated as proper name in a majority of reliable sources, thus requiring captialistion. This is supported by the MOS.

Reliable sources were implied but not stated throughout the discussion, my close is based on finding them myself with Google: U.S. National Park Service, nps.gov, NOAA, recreation.gov more.

Although I had not noticed this at time of closing, I further note that UNESCO themselves capitalise the generic usage of "World Heritage Site" in the actual documentation related to listed sites, but not on their website itself. The argument put forward here is that it is not capitalised on their site, but I note that wherever the document has legal significance, capitalisation is used, by UNESCO itself.

Please consider that I have resolved not to change my close, chiefly based on the fact that further investigation and discussion has only strengthened the case for how I closed it. You can still take this matter to move review if you are not satisfied. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 11:19, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for a reasonable and well though-out close. Thanks to Rodney Baggins for bringing this good faith RM question up, and of course to Amakuru for taking the lead in correcting the first flawed RM. The flaw was closing it with only two comments, and my flaw and participation in that RM was not looking up the n-grams to see that the upper-cased form was overwhelmingly the preferred style and the most recognizable name in English. I think this was a good result all around. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Now on Wikipedia:Move Review#World Heritage Site. Nothing personal, no hard feelings... ;) No such user (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Think tanks in the Netherlands

Hi Frayae,

I started the page on 'Draft:Wetenschappelijk Instituut voor het CDA' and I understand your point about sources and citations. But how is it different from the page of the other institutes listed here: List_of_think_tanks#Netherlands, Telders_Foundation, Wiardi_Beckman_Stichting.

Background: I'm writing a paper about political think tanks in Europe (full disclosure: I work at one of them, the CDA-WI) and the information on the list of think tanks seem very incomplete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Airs747 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Airs747, I think you would do better working from a decent article like Fabian Society. The articles you list there need a lot of work to even be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. I completely agree that Wikipedia's coverage of think tanks is very incomplete.

I think your position as working for a think tank yourself does put you in a good position to work on these subjects. You must be careful though to observe the conflict of interest rules. It is very easy to get permanently blocked from editing by working on the article about your employer for example, and you should take care even on related topics not to contravene the guidelines.

I moved Draft:Wetenschappelijk Instituut voor het CDA to the draft area because it has no citations at all. The one external link to the organisation does not count in my opinion as a citation.

I think under the circumstances, you should follow a number of steps before continuing:

I assume you are not being paid to edit Wikipedia, although if you are, there is a different set of steps, which I can also help you with.

1. Go to your userpage (User:Airs747) and put {{UserboxCOI|1=Draft:Wetenschappelijk Instituut voor het CDA}} on the top line of the page. Explain on your talk page that you are writing a paper, and explain that you work for the CDA-WI. Make sure you explain that you are not being paid for your contributions to Wikipedia. Save the page.
2. Go to Draft talk:Wetenschappelijk Instituut voor het CDA, and place {{Connected contributor|User1=Airs747 |U1-declared=yes| U1-otherlinks=Works for CDA-WI.}} on the page and save it.
3. Work on the article where it is, and when done to a good quality with at least five decent citations, submit it to AfC with the template on the article. It will be reviewed and published.
4. Once it is published, you are not supposed to edit it, but you can still request edits on the article talk page.
5. Working on other similar articles is a good idea, but avoid writing about the CDA-WI itself on other articles. If you think the CDA-WI should be mentioned on another article, you can make an edit request on that articles talk page.

I hope this helps. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, I see the point. About the page: I adapted the version from the Dutch wikipedia page. That has other standards, apparently. Possible conflicts of interest: good point, better to let someone else do it. Remains the issue of other pages that are referred to on the list of think tanks in the Netherlands. Some of them have no references as well and even shorter than what I had. That seems odd. Airs747 (talk) 12:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

My only explanation is that a new page patroller decided they were plausibly significant organisations and approved them. I have sent Draft:Telders Foundation to the draft area. Strictly speaking Wiardi Beckman Stichting is acceptable, after I added some citations. Regarding the Dutch Wikipedia, I assume the standards are different there, the standards are very different on the Icelandic Wikipedia. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 13:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)