User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2021/08

Latest comment: 2 years ago by King of Hearts in topic Unprotection request for FC Bayern Munich

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021 edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2021).

  Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.

  Technical news

  • Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

List of Admiralty Charts 1967 edit

I see that the decision on the article is transwiki to Wikisource, and that you are the admin on this. What next? The article is still there on WP. How is the transfer managed? I have used Wikisource but never contributed material, so I am not familiar with the procedures. Do I, as creator of the page, need to be involved, or does this just happen? Thanks Kognos (talk) 10:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Someone with Importer rights on Wikisource needs to perform the import. -- King of ♥ 04:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Is that on a to-do list somewhere? Kognos (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

20:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD edit

Hi King of Hearts,

This is to let you know that the featured picture File:Inspiration Point Bryce Canyon November 2018 panorama.jpg, which you uploaded or nominated, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for August 19, 2021. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2021-08-19. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

 

Bryce Canyon National Park is an American national park located in southwestern Utah. The major feature of the park is Bryce Canyon, which despite its name, is not a canyon, but a collection of giant natural amphitheaters along the eastern side of the Paunsaugunt Plateau. This panoramic view, as seen from Inspiration Point, shows the colorful Claron Formation, from which the park's delicate hoodoos are carved; the sediments were laid down in a system of streams and lakes that existed from 63 to about 40 million years ago (from the Paleocene to the Eocene epochs). The brown, pink and red colors are from hematite, the yellows from limonite, and the purples from pyrolusite.

Photograph credit: Tony Jin

16:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Undeletion request edit

Hello King of Hearts. Please restore the ff. files in accordance with newly-accepted consensus at Commons on exceptions of Italian works by deceased authors (c:Template:FoP-Italy):

- both by Carlo Scarpa who died in 1978.

I once tried requesting the undeletion at WP:UNDEL, but for some reason my requests were unnoticed. They are now archived at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 362.

I am now requesting for your restoration of these, as I recently saw your closure of several Italian pending FOP cases as kept (like c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Torre Galfa (Milan) and c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Milano - panoramio (28).jpg). Thank you. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Done -- King of ♥ 16:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
August 14, 12-5pm: Wikimania Wiknic NYC
 
Wikimania 2021
Welcome to Wikimedia New York City!

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for a planned socially-distanced Wiknic ("the picnic anyone can edit") in Brooklyn's Prospect Park to coincide with the virtual Wikimania 2021.

For this occasion, and to allow more space as desired, we have individually packed lunches provided by the chapter, and attendees are encouraged to RSVP at Eventbrite and give sandwich/entree orders.

12:00pm - 5:00 pm in a shaded grove in front of the Picnic House
(Prospect Park, Brooklyn)
 
Long Meadow of Prospect Park

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 18:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Speedy close? edit

Please revert your speedy close of this RM here which has significant support. Just because a proposal contradicts a guideline doesn't mean consensus can't change or choose to IAR the guideline in a given case. I don't think a speedy close is justified here. And WP:SPEEDY does not even apply to RM discussions anyway. Please allow it to run its course. Thanks. --В²C 03:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

By speedy I actually mean WP:SNOW - over the years many RMs have been attempted in contravention of WP:USPLACE, and they have never succeeded. And even if a slim majority happen to support such a result at a particular discussion (which this RM was not trending towards by the way), it is far more likely just luck of the draw in terms of who showed up rather than evidence of consensus changing. (If you have a population where 60-70% of people support something, and you take enough random samples of 10 people, you'll eventually end up with one where the opposition is a majority.) That is partly what WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is for; WP:IAR can only override a guideline with an overwhelming consensus. The right place to discuss USPLACE is on the talk page of the guideline, which I see is already ongoing. Why not steer that discussion towards your preferred view, and if you succeed restart the RM? -- King of ♥ 03:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
That may be good advice—thank you—but it’s beside the point, which is about the appropriateness of your premature close of an ongoing RM discussion. SNOW is rarely used in RMs and normally only where the discussion is unanimously agreed upon one way or another. I suggest you reread WP:SNOWBALL and pay particular attention to WP:SNOW#The snowball test, which this case does not meet, and WP:SNOW#A cautionary note. Thanks. —-В²C 05:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
In a normal discussion, a mere majority of well-thought arguments is sufficient to carry the day. In this discussion, an overwhelming supermajority is required to override WP:USPLACE, and that's just not going to happen; it's about as likely as an AfD with 10 unanimous deletes turning into a slim majority to keep. -- King of ♥ 05:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
And all that is relevant once the listing has elapsed and is ready for evaluation. Not before. —В²C 10:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
(User talk page watcher here) @Born2cycle: while I support for simplification of the names, in my opinion KoH is right. You cannot initiate any new move requests while a centralized discussion is ongoing. That is what happened to our case, in which the use of cityname-only convention for uniquely-named Philippine towns was only "institutionalized" thru MOSPHIL during mid-2020 (though I can now see some shortcomings of this convention such as the case of Bulusan). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
You have it backwards. The RM was proposed three days before the centralized discussion was started. The close of the ongoing active RM was premature when it was suddenly closed days before it would elapse and be ready for closure. Highly inappropriate. You’ve tried to rationalize this close in three different ways now, none of which apply (SPEEDY, SNOW, and “started while centralized discussion is ongoing”). Please. This is ridiculous. —В²C 10:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
B2C: The RM was flawed from the outset. You should have directed User:PK2, the technical requester, to USPLACE, PERENNIAL, or even the Village Pump since the subject is (as I'm sure you're aware) flagged as a perennially-rejected proposal, and since their less-than-one-sentence request gives no indication of any familiarity with these guidelines. They may not have even wished to continue with the request had that been made clear. Choosing instead to immediately elevate the request into an RM of your own as a means of debating the subject again was disruptive. For a variety of reasons, closure was justified. ╠╣uw [talk] 13:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
No, it wasn’t justified. All of these unjustified excuses don’t allow for consensus to change which happens through discussion of individual cases exactly like this one, as well as through centralized overall discussions. It’s WP:Status quo stonewalling. —В²C 17:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
I think we just fundamentally disagree on what WP:IAR means. For me, IAR does not mean to attempt to gradually chip away at a guideline until it ceases to be enforced. IAR is for situations that come up rarely, where we ignore a policy or guideline as a one-off because the situation demands it, but is unlikely to be invoked for similar situations in the future. If there is a large set of instances in which you believe a guideline is wrong, then the correct procedure is to propose to change it. We should never get in a habit of invoking IAR in a similar manner on the same guideline on a variety of cases (which I assume is your intention here; as a final outcome, having the AP cities + Omaha be the only cities without a state would make no one happy). -- King of ♥ 17:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
It’s for both. The relevant purpose here is WP:CCC. And you don’t even need IAR to propose a change contrary to previously established consensus. So there’s no rule-breaking involved in such a proposal, and no justification to close it prior to it elapsing. —18:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
And that's where we disagree. As I understand it, IAR is not for changing consensus. It is for doing something contrary to sitewide consensus even as you continue to acknowledge its general applicability. Basically, you shouldn't use IAR because you disagree with a rule; you should only use it when a rule ought not be applied in a particular case for very special reasons. -- King of ♥ 18:57, 13 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

19:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

21:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

August 25, 7pm: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC
 
Welcome to Wikimedia New York City!

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-8pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop. To join the meeting from your computer or smartphone, just visit this link. More information about how to connect is available on the meetup page.

We look forward to seeing local Wikimedians, but would also like to invite folks from the greater New York metropolitan area (and beyond!) who might not typically be able to join us in person!

If there's a project you'd like to share or a question you'd like answered, just let us know by adding it to the agenda or the talk page.

7:00pm - 8:00 pm online via Zoom (optional breakout rooms from 8:00-8:30)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 14:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Read-only reminder edit

A maintenance operation will be performed on Wednesday August 25 06:00 UTC. It should only last for a few minutes.

Also during this time, operations on the CentralAuth will not be possible (GlobalRenames, changing/confirming e-mail addresses, logging into new wikis, password changes).

For more details about the operation and on all impacted services, please check on Phabricator.

A banner will be displayed 30 minutes before the operation.

Please help your community to be aware of this maintenance operation. Thank you!

20:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

You closed the discussion as a redirect but there was only one person who proposed redirect and they said Delete or redirect. Why did you choose redirect?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

The purpose of an AfD is not to determine whether a page should exist at a particular title; that is the job of RfD/RM. The purpose of an AfD is to determine whether a topic deserves an individual article, regardless of where it is located. None of the "delete" !voters presented an argument as to why the article history should be erased or why the redirect is inappropriate, so they can be considered to implicitly support redirection. If anyone disagrees with the redirect, they can nominate it for RfD. -- King of ♥ 20:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
(talk page stalker) I can sort of see both sides to this, especially as the AfD seemingly had no clear consensus either way. Maybe an NC closure would have been more appropriate (if perhaps, less ideal) to allow for a new listing with fresh input. A redirect can almost be considered a de facto delete though, as delete had a credible amount of support. Maybe KoH needs to consider expanding upon their AfD closure rationale better in future (especially as I queried an AfD closure by KoH here not long ago, also due to unclear rationale). Bungle (talkcontribs) 21:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
No, I saw a clear consensus here to delete/redirect. While WP:GNG is met, WP:NEVENT is one of the few SNGs that strengthens GNG (along with WP:NCORP), so meeting GNG alone is not sufficient. Any "new listing with fresh input" should not discuss whether the article belongs (it doesn't), but rather whether the page should stay (i.e. an RfD). -- King of ♥ 21:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
KoH, for what it's worth, I don't think the redirect (for which I couldn't personally care less about), was a "clear" consensus, though the delete arguments were stronger, not overwhelming. I only really jumped in on this to suggest that you may want to consider expanding on your AfD closure rationales, as many closers already do, as that would at least relay your closure reasoning to involved editors. I can see why WilliamJE raised an eyebrow at this, as I did on another AfD you closed recently. Maybe just take it into account in future? Bungle (talkcontribs) 21:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Duly noted. At the time I found that a !vote count of 8 to 4 with not particularly strong "keep" arguments did not require an explanation, but I'll err on the side of providing one in the future. -- King of ♥ 22:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Draft? edit

Hello King of Hearts, thank you for creating the draft, but I am not sure how to get it out of a draft once final clean up or additions are made. Was wondering if I could ask you to guide or point me to where it is written? Thanks. TataofTata (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

You can move it yourself: Special:MovePage/Draft:2009 Istanbul Molotov Bus Attack. However, please ensure that it is well-cited and ready for the main namespace before moving. You don't want someone nominating it for deletion again. -- King of ♥ 16:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Ah ok I see, thank you. TataofTata (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 29 August 2021 edit

15:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Unprotection request for FC Bayern Munich edit

Hi, the article FC Bayern Munich was pending-changes protected by you due to persistent vandalism back in 2013. Vandalism is infrequent now and the article is edited a lot, so I don't think it is a good candidate for pending changes protection anymore. Thanks –Gladamas (talk · contribs) 23:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Done King of ♥ 23:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Reply