Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:12, 22 October 2014

I am always very busy, and I can't edit as often as I'd like. However, I do check Misplaced Pages from time to time. If you leave a message here, I will notice it eventually.
I try to accept criticism of my edits and responsibility for my comments, and we should be able to resolve any editing disputes amicably. Feel free to express your opinion or ask for my help.
I have an archive of older topics from this page. It can be accessed here.

Talk:Chitram Bhalare Vichitram

I mistakenly voted "oppose" without realizing that it's a movie, not a person. "Chitram!" is more accurate than "Chitram", and I didn't notice comparison between Chitram and Vichitram. Can you undo closure and then relist please (using {{subst:relisting}}), so I can change my vote to "support"? --George Ho (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I have put this article on move review. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. --George Ho (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I have replied at move review. Dekimasuよ! 17:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Durham

I assume you know of a quick and easy way to migrate all of the links for the English Durham that currently go to Durham to its new location following today's move? Bob talk 13:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm unsure whether you're indicating that I should have cleaned up after myself more after closing the move discussion, but the changes have to be done manually or semi-manually with something like Dab Solver. After the move I pointed all relevant double redirects at Durham, England immediately, but this is clearly not a task that can be finished all at once in this case. Because a dab page was moved to the original location of the English Durham, {{Incoming links}} (which I created in 2007) has already been transcluded there by a bot and the Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation pages with links project has been notified that many links need to be redirected. I would not be surprised if they have started on resolving this issue already. Unfortunately, the move did create work for some people; on the other hand, I think it reflected the consensus of the discussion. Dekimasuよ! 16:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Artificial

When you make moves like that one, please remember to add the necessary mechanism to enable readers to find the dab page. I've added hatnote at Artificiality in this case. PamD 07:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder. This is probably an indication that I've processed too many move requests over the past few days; I'll slow down. I'll fix Man-made, as well. Dekimasuよ! 07:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Move review for Sex Tape (film)

An editor has asked for a Move review of Sex Tape (film). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Steel1943 (talk) 01:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I have replied at move review. I'm not sure it was necessary to go to move review instead of asking me about this, but I've still got a pretty good batting average considering the number of weeks-old discussions I've cleaned out of the RM backlog. Dekimasuよ! 02:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Dekimasu, thanks for your reply there, and on the review. By the way, thanks a TON for closing a lot of the discussions on the RM backlog; that backlog is getting a bit out of control. Me taking this close to MRV is the equivalent if why I haven't been closing the RM discussions that have been in the backlog; fear of closing them in a manner that could be disputed. (That, and being a non-admin, I can't close discussions that require deletions, and my closes would be subject to even more scrutiny.) Steel1943 (talk) 02:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Port Authority Trans-Hudson

Hey, would you consider relisting instead of closing the discussion at Talk:Port Authority Trans-Hudson? I meant to make a comment that I'm pretty sure negates the one oppose argument (and the other per him argument) but never got around to it. Thought it would make more sense to include it there rather than have to start a new discussion.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I have reopened and relisted the move request. I hope consensus one way or the other can be reached with a bit more time, as you suggest; not sure I'm as optimistic as you are, though! Dekimasuよ! 07:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Hopefully something can be worked out -- I was just so shocked to hear the rationale that Port Authority Trans-Hudson was just as commonly used as PATH, and that this was the basis for both oppose !votes, that I just had to speak up.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Renaming of Japanese articles

Hi Dekimasu,

I have left a response on the talk page for the MoS. Gryffindor (talk) 09:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Nagano x3

Hi Dekimasu, I'm slightly confused by the recent Nagano moves.

From what I see, before September 2014, Nagano was a redirect to Nagano, Nagano. My reasoning:

• Looking at logs of "Nagano" and "Nagano (disambiguation)", I don't see any records of "Nagano" being the disambiguation page before today. If "Nagano" had been the disambiguation page, then there would have had to been a move on 10 September 2014 of "Nagano" to "Nagano (disambiguation)".
• Furthermore, looking at the hatnote on "Nagano, Nagano" page, "Nagano" has been redirect to "Nagano, Nagano" for a very long time.

So my timeline:

• 'Stable' version of Nagano was a redirect to Nagano, Nagano. Nagano (disambiguation) was the disambiguation page.
• On 10 September 2014 there was an undiscussed move of "Nagano, Nagano" to "Nagano". "Nagano (disambiguation)" was not touched.
• Over a month later, today, the September move was reverted. Then "Nagano (disambiguation)" was moved to "Nagano". As far as I can tell, this was the first time "Nagano" was the disambiguation page.
• Wbm1058 reverted the move of "Nagano (disambiguation)" to "Nagano". This puts us back at the 'stable' version.
• Then revert of Wbm1058 edit, with reasoning that the 'stable' version is for "Nagano" to be the disambiguation page (which I think is wrong).

Is there something I'm missing (e.g. some logs that are only visible to admins)? Because judging by logs & hatnote, the stable version is to have "Nagano" redirect to "Nagano, Nagano". If we're reverting to 'stable' version while discussion is taking place (btw, where is this discussion?), shouldn't be go to that version? If the consensus is to have "Nagano" be the disambiguation page, then as Wbm1058 stated, all the links have to be edited before the move.

Thanks, Kirin13 (talk) 01:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks to me like the two of you are right on this one. I was working on reverting a series of parallel moves that all replaced dab pages with city pages, and I appear to have overlooked that in this case the base name originally redirected to the city. The correct reversions do not require the initiation of discussion, but were done per WP:RM rules on reverting controversial moves; initiating discussion is incumbent upon someone who wants to change the status quo. The main discussion, though, that caused the reversions is currently at Talk:Shizuoka, Shizuoka, and the same user who moved Nagano, Nagano made many changes that were the inverse of the moves I made today. I'm not sure I'd agree that the relationship of Nagano (the city) to Nagano (the prefecture) represents a different case from Shizuoka, Saitama, Chiba, etc., but my reversions to "stable" versions were not intended to be judgments and should have been limited to the article and not the disambiguation page in the case of Nagano. Will revert my move of the dab page on Nagano and change the redirect. Dekimasuよ! 01:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I had guessed it may have been a small oversight considering the number of pages involved. If the decision is made to make Nagano the disambig page, the wikilinks to "Nagano" should probably be edited before the move to prevent Nagano ending up on the Daily Disambig with practically a 1000 links. Thanks, Kirin13 (talk) 01:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Falcons

Hello - just wondering how you justified the move here. Where is the consensus in a 5-3 !vote, where several of the supporters offered no policy justification? (E.g., "Obvious" is not a policy justification, especially when other participants have invoked policy.) Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I am not a great fan of the idea (see Talk:Secrets, which I know you know about), but I found bd2412's suggestion that the sports teams could be referred to in the main article on the birds a reason to think that the objections had been partially satsified, and I found the references to other similar cases persuasive. I also don't think that WP:PLURALPT is as clear on what to do here as was implied; Falcon is certainly not a dicdef, and while WP:PLURALPT recognizes that people who search for a plural may have done so intentionally, the very fact that most of these users are likely aware that there are many teams called "the Falcons" is a likely reason to not search for the team via the search term "falcons." At any rate, there will be a hatnote on Falcon directing those users to the dab page, or you are welcome to move this to move review (which is mostly a discussion of my closes this month, but that's because there are few other people closing, I hope). Dekimasuよ! 15:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to add: while there were many of these move requests, when closing them, I have been trying to evaluate the discussions individually, although many involve the same editors. This has resulted in closing some discussions as "consensus to move" and others as "no consensus to move." Dekimasuよ! 15:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, it just seemed like taking these ones individually, this one had one of the weaker bids for consensus. I thought the suggestion to put all the "falcons" in a trivia section was not very useful, so it did not address my objections. We're hopefully moving towards a global consensus through all these RMs of when plural articles and dabs are appropriate, and it seemed to me like this one was on the one side of the line. Dohn joe (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thanks for closing out the RM discussion and moving the page. Glad that's over with. Appreciate it. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)