User talk:Dekimasu

I am always very busy, and I can't edit as often as I'd like. However, I do check Wikipedia 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.

You seem to be very exited and interested in my editing domain don't you! Every single time in every controversy related to me, you always come outta nowhere! Very nice of you, keep it up! – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ 🗿 18:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akshadev, you pinged me with a direct question last week, so I am following your talk page. Please be aware that issuing threats and retaliating against editors who disagree with you is actionable. Leaving a comment instead of making a decision on the matter myself was meant to be the gentler option here. Dekimasuよ! 18:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did follow the gentler option, and I am aware of what Wikipedia is and what Wikipedia is not! – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ 🗿 18:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no hard feelings for anyone in the community but I do not like to repeatedly describe something again and again! I warned that IP in my edit summaries multiple times before (at Chiangrai United F.C.) but I guess they were unable to see and listen! May be they're deaf or something! – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ 🗿 18:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As noted at WP:AIV, other editors do not appear to regard the IP's edits as vandalism. However, what I was objecting to was specifically this particular edit summary, "Enough explanation by me, now you'll pay". Threatening other editors is never acceptable under any circumstances, and going through the list of the IPs edits and undoing them when they have not been blocked can be regarded as harassment. I find it very troubling that you are doubling down on this. Note that I have not given you an "ultimatum"; we are not supposed to be giving ultimatums, because they are counterproductive. I am asking you not to threaten or hound the other editor, whether you feel your position is correct or not. Have you received that message? Dekimasuよ! 18:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was nothing but frustration. It happens sometimes! You can't expect a person (like I am for example) to repeatedly teach some IPs about editing Wikipedia or how it's done! Although I can assure you that I'll be more careful with my words! Can't guarantee it but of course I'll better try not to do it. Happy editing! – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ 🗿 18:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have I recieved that message! Not exactly (I guess)! I have no idea what massage you're referring to! – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ 🗿 18:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's time for me to sleep, It's 3:43AM in Japan, so you should also take a nap or something. Goodnight! – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ 🗿 18:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All editors are expected to uphold Wikipedia's policies regarding user conduct consistently, including when dealing with IPs. You've said that you will be more careful with your words, so hopefully this is an isolated incident; please be sure that you are also not retaliating against other editors. If other editors are causing you too much frustration, please consider taking a break. I hope the sleep will help; you're right, it's late here too. Dekimasuよ! 18:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like I haven't been slept for the ages! And I have took frequent breaks, sometimes for a day, but things never changed, they always remained the same! Anyway we should leave this topic. I asked you a question three paragraphs above (What message have I received?). – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ 🗿 03:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The message is simply insistence that you not threaten or retaliate against other editors, even when frustrated. You do not need to reply again here. You've already said that you will do your best, and hopefully that means there will be no further problems. Dekimasuよ! 04:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edits today, please note that WP:RMCI#Conflicts of interest states "Do not ask for a specific closer under any circumstances." When a move request has run its course, someone uninvolved will eventually close it. Specific editors should not be messaged for a close; if there is something particularly pressing involved, you can make a post at Wikipedia:Closure requests. Dekimasuよ! 04:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright! Thanks for the suggestion! – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ 🗿 05:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dekimasu. I hope this message finds you well. I wanted to reach out with a quick inquiry regarding the Wikipedia page for Zaw Min Tun (general). I have noticed that there is another individual named Zaw Min Tun, a footballer, who does not use the (footballer) designation in his page title, whereas the general's page includes (general).In an effort to maintain a better standard of names and enhance visibility for General Zaw Min Tun, who is currently more relevant than the footballer, I am interested in proposing a move from "Zaw Min Tun (general)" to simply "Zaw Min Tun."Could you kindly guide me on the appropriate steps to initiate this process? Your assistance is highly appreciated. If this adjustment is not feasible or requires further consideration, I completely understand.Thank you for your time and support. KhantWiki (talk) 10:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem with the way the discussion is arranged, but the discussion needs to proceed for one week, and the page must not be moved while the discussion is open. Please leave things the way they are, although you should feel free to respond with additional comments. Note that General Zaw Min Tun is not a standard title under WP:NCP. Also, it is fine to write to me using your own words. If there is something I can't understand, I'll let you know. Best, Dekimasuよ! 15:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks! KhantWiki (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dekimasu,

I am terribly sorry I removed your additional comment when I added a few things to the Afd about Choshu. I saw there was an edit conflict and tried to resolve it manually but I didn't check neither the preview nor the result. My sincere apologies. Thanks again for noting and fixing it. Very sorry. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Thanks for the note. Best, Dekimasuよ! 16:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please, can you recontrol all info you've deleted (corrections, sources as requested, etc.) and maybe edit yourself those very important? Thank you. --80.116.115.57 14:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know that you are aware you should not be editing when blocked, and that you should not be switching IPs or using other accounts to continue editing (on the English Wikipedia, WP:EVADE). I will not reinstate the material that was reverted; the evidence shows that this would encourage you to continue evading your block, and there are other issues with what was changed, such as (but not limited to) repeated insertion of personal judgments (e.g. "mercilessly") that are not supported by the evidence. One underlying point is that it is disruptive—a drain on the time and resources of a significant number of editors in good standing—to try to go through each example of your block evasion to attempt to determine what is useful and what is not, when it is already known that there is a pattern of problems. A second underlying point is that you should not be trying to insert material while blocked, or negotiate the reinsertion of material while blocked. While I was not the first person to block you either here or on other Wikimedia sites, I encourage you to reflect on the pattern of blocks that you have faced to date. Not all editors are blocked for disruption, so you should make an attempt to consider why your editing has resulted in blocks. And not all editors who are blocked attempt to circumvent the blocks through evasion. Currently, to editors and administrators attempting to improve articles here, your evasion is an indication that you are not interested in adhering to the behavioral norms of the project or acknowledging consensus. If you would like this sort of thing to be reconsidered at some point in the future, the proper course of action is to not continue the same pattern that resulted in your blocks. That, of course, would also mean not evading your block. Best, Dekimasuよ! 15:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but can you recontrol it anyway? 80.116.115.57 (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not fully understand what you mean by "recontrol", but for example, this is not a reliable source. I am not sure what your goal has been in editing that article, but it does not serve readers to add unreliable or sensationalized information. Editing the article down to what is actually verifiable would probably result in a much shorter article than the current version. If there is an editor who is interested in improving the article, it will be improved. Note that this does not mean that you should contact editors to ask them to change the article. There is no deadline. Your reply does not indicate to me that you have understood my previous message; I encourage you to read it again. Dekimasuよ! 15:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have started to reinstate block-evading edits on other pages, I have blocked the IP you were using to write here. If you have other comments related to your block, I encourage you to log in and write them on the talk page of the account that is currently marked as the sockmaster—e.g. indicating a desire to take the Wikipedia:Standard offer. However, please note that this suggestion does not mean you should attempt to negotiate article contents on that user talk page. Dekimasuよ! 15:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dekimasu-san, Thank you for everything you do to improve Wikipedia particularly with providing Japanese sources in deletion discussions. I wanted to ask you a question about changing the page a link redirects to and moving pages around. I noticed that you linked to Shukan Shinchō in the Shinohara Yoshiko deletion discussion. Oddly, that link redirects to Weekly magazines in Japan instead of Shukan Shincho. It seems to me that that, at a minimum, the redirect should point to the magazine but ideally, the article should be located at Shukan Shinchō where you linked it. I don't know how to approach this given the existing article locations and redirects. Do you have any advise? DCsansei (talk) 13:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. It looks like the redirect predates the article, which explains why it doesn't point to the right place now. I mostly agree that the magazine should be at the title with the macron, but those sorts of moves are not always uncontroversial. (The question tends to be whether a standard title without the macron has already been established in English, even though the macronned form is more accurate.) I will point the redirect to the current location, and then a request can be made at WP:RM to adjust the title of the article if necessary. Best, Dekimasuよ! 02:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I don't think I've made a requested move yet but will try to read the documentation and do it at some point, it seems similar to deletion discussions. So far my Wikipedia involvement has mostly involved writing articles, editing, and participating in deletion discussions. DCsansei (talk) 12:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out I did a start a requested move before in an ill-fated attempt to get the article on WW2 incarceration moved to reflect the more accurate terminology. Anyway, I have made the request at Talk:Shukan Shincho. DCsansei (talk) 20:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that there was an improvement suggested in that discussion (Shūkan Shinchō) that I would normally need to kick myself about, so it shows that it's worth involving more eyes in the conversation. But at the same time, we also got the redirect fixed. So good results all around! Best, Dekimasuよ! 04:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dekimasu hey please stop reverting edits on directed Wikipedia pages okay Lovemuhcko (talk) 06:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lovemuhcko, please note that wikilinks should only be altered when they are not pointed to the correct locations. The edits you have been making are already pointing to the correct articles, so they should not be altered per WP:NOTBROKEN. Changing the links creates a strain on the editing time of other editors, with no positive results, and in many cases the links you altered were also intentionally specific. As I explained in my edit summaries, continuing to do this is a form of disruptive editing that can result in blocks. Best, Dekimasuよ! 06:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just realized I left a message a bit out of context for you at User talk:Joy#Bludgeon?. I'd appreciate it if you could have a look over there. --Joy (talk) 13:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me of the subsequent discussion, and I have replied on your talk page. Best, Dekimasuよ! 04:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dekimasu - I recently came across an editor with pagemover rights, who's been moving pages without redirects in situations where I believe none of the WP:PMRC apply. I was going to leave them a message about it, but then I noticed that they've had a number of such messages over several years; including a final warning left by yourself in January 2020. Since then, they've had at least one other enquiry about their use of the permission, which - as far as I can see - wasn't responded to.

I therefore wanted to seek the attention/advice of an admin on this matter. I'm messaging you as the admin that left the final warning, but I purposefully haven't named the editor in question yet as I wanted to check if you'd mind this sort of report on your talk page; or if you'd rather I went to AN/I or somewhere else.

Let me know what you think would be best in this situation. All the best. ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 04:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have not looked at this in a while, but it seems this was still happening last year (e.g. here in mainspace and some but not all of the large number of talk archive moves), and there have been a few individual problematic repressions this year, mostly involving talk pages. The behavior falls under WP:PMRR #3, particularly because this is a pattern over an extended period, the editor is aware of the problem, and there has been a refusal to change to adhere to WP:R#SUPPRESS. It's unfortunate because the editor is otherwise productive. It would be easier for me to have others deal with this since I may not be able to respond in a timely way if there are any objections to the removal, but I would be happy to reply as necessary if you initiate a discussion somewhere. WP:AN might be the place to start (see Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions#Where to file a request for removal of Page Mover rights?). I would also suggest focusing on the mainspace and talk errors rather than the archives, since some of the talk archive moves appear correct and it may be more difficult to explain that aspect of the problem succinctly (e.g. try explaining why this is inappropriate in a few sentences... in comparison, this or this is easy to understand). If you have any other questions, please let me know. Best, Dekimasuよ! 05:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dekimatsu,

My Wikipedia page received the following notice today: "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." I was unaware that Wikipedia's policies did not look kindly on adding content to his own Wikipedia page when I added some content to my page on March 5th. Wikipedia notified me of this and, as a result, I first apologized in a message to Wikipedia and then COMPLETELY REMOVED THE CONTENT I HAD ADDED from my page on March 7th, reverting the page back to the way if was beforehand. As a result, my Wikipedia page is now back to the way it was in February of this year. I hope this action on my part alleviates your concern. Thanks!

Sincerely, Paul Richman Richmanpaul (talk) 18:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not quite the case that your edits restored the page to the way it looked before your edits, although I acknowledge that may have been your intention; I have replied in further detail at User talk:Richmanpaul, but I have not readded the conflict of interest tag to the article. Best, Dekimasuよ! 04:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dekimasu - Thank you very much for your detailed explanation as to what happened, which I completely understand and I am very willing to accept. As I had previously indicated to Wikipedia in the TALK section associated with my article, I was unaware that Wikipedia's policies did not look kindly on adding content to one’s own Wikipedia page when I added some content to my page on March 5th. Wikipedia notified me of this and, as a result, I first apologized in a message to Wikipedia and then I immediately removed (almost) all of the content I had added to my page on March 7th. I read what you have said and, as I said before, although I’m disappointed that the existence of my two textbooks is no longer mentioned at all in the article (especially since there are a number of references that clearly prove that at least English language versions of both books exist), all that you’ve done is acceptable to me. Once again, I’m very sorry for any trouble I might have caused and, in the future, please be assured that I certainly won’t be making any additions or modifications to my Wikipedia page! Dekimasu – thank you so much for your understanding. Sincerely, Paul Richman Richmanpaul (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dekimasu, I've explained my reason in those pages' summary, then, please, can you read about those absolutely necessary corrections very well instead of delete them again? Maybe you can modify them if there is something wrong. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.101.101 (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

please, can you left them so it's definitely closed? or in alternative, after the deletion, van you added them yourself in a correct way? 193.207.106.153 (talk) 07:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A last change to contribute in a very proper way, not vandalism and requests to other users. I'm now "Mario1945". Mario1945 (talk) 11:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As before, block evasion and using sock accounts is not a route to instituting your preferred version of articles. Admitting that you are using a sock account does not mean that ignoring the existing block is acceptable. Dekimasuよ! 14:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Create this article please.... Born:January 5th 2018 TV program: Japanese Let's Go (2023) birthplace Bangkok 2001:44C8:4286:21D8:C94A:392E:B1E3:E94E (talk) 09:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subjects of biographical articles on Wikipedia must meet certain standards for notability. To me, it does not appear that those standards are met at this time. Best, Dekimasuよ! 09:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Need Wikipedia standard ISO 2001:44C8:4286:21D8:C94A:392E:B1E3:E94E (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dearest admin,
I have reopened the RM. Please help check whether everything is fine now. Thanks! — Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understand if you are not interested, but penny for your thoughts at Talk:Hokkaido#NPOV language? I made an edit to discuss more of the history of the island wrt Japan in addition to the displacement of the Ainus but was undone by an editor who seems to make a practice of adding info about China on Japan-related articles. I replied to a discussion in the talk page. DCsansei (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have had a look at the page histories of two articles - Matt Lowton (formerly at Matthew Lowton when you protected) and Jack Cork and shows no disruption since protecting them back 4 years ago. I am wondering if this may be an idea to remove protection from both those pages as the subjects are not globally popular and disruption was fairly rare except for 2019 and January 2020 when you protected them indefinitely. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the time the disruption was very... disruptive. I have tried unprotecting them for now, so let's see what happens. Best, Dekimasuよ! 07:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dekimasu, since you blocked Wildlover22 indefinitely, even the sockpuppetry twice, I think it is time for Wildlover22 to retire. Once the Wildlover22 is retiring, you'll never have to be sockpuppetry on the other user pages that belonged to Wildlover22's. Hope you like the my idea. Obrigado (Thank you in Português in Brazilian). Robotlover26 (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that continuing the same pattern of editing while logged out is not an improvement. Dekimasuよ! 09:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dekimasu, I think this sockpuppeteer may have returned. See Draft:Yagyū Domain and Draft:Katō (clan) as examples. -- asilvering (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have cleaned up the changes made by the newer sock (which, as I'm sure you noticed, also included unmarked machine translations and using sources that did not corroborate article/draft contents). I am not convinced that all of the Exam26 edits have been cleaned up consistently yet; that's one of the things that made it easy for this sock to pick up where the Exam26 account left off. Dekimasuよ! 11:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With your rollback you have deleted info and sources absolutely necessary. Please, can you restore them yourself, so it's definitely closed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.198.133 (talk) 07:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As before, block evasion and using sock accounts is not a route to instituting your preferred version of articles. Dekimasuよ! 07:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, from the discussion here, I went and replaced the fictional references from 4 articles that were moved to draftspace (the other 2 seems to have been deleted under G5, making it impossible for me to attempt the same thing, wouldn't have been notable anyways), and also fixed some horrible translations and excessive use of bold markups. However, as my English skill is limited, I am not quite sure if this was enough cleaning to get the unverifiable informations off. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 12:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with this. As you have probably seen, there has been some additional sockpuppetry involved, but I think we have cleaned up many of the problems that were created by this editing. Best, Dekimasuよ! 08:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!, I wanted to let you know that the prime minister of Iceland, Bjarni Benediktsson condemns the attack on Donald Trump yesterday, https://x.com/Bjarni_Ben/status/1812446456885748051 , https://www.visir.is/g/20242596773d/bjarni-segir-at-burdi-gaer-kvoldsins-a-takan-lega

Thank you :) Yonghwoarang (talk) 13:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I only made a few edits to that article at the time it was a current event, but generally speaking, it is routine for everyone to condemn such a thing. While international impact is important to cover in articles, I doubt that many individual reactions are necessary to include. Best, Dekimasuよ! 08:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't know there were Japanese admins here. Sugoi desu ka. Rolando 1208 (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know there are at least three current admins on the English Wikipedia who claim to have near-native Japanese ability. The number is quite low, however. Dekimasuよ! 08:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

can you check this topic please in my sandbox and can you help me to add sources in the article Ilovestreaming (talk) 08:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have already received feedback elsewhere, but if the article you are working on is an autobiography, please review Wikipedia:Autobiography. Otherwise, please review WP:BIO. Best, Dekimasuよ! 08:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you about this, but it looks like we have another well-meaning but problematic editor working in this subject area. You can see my attempts to get anywhere at all at User talk:Asilvering#Draft:Homutsuwake no Mikoto; in short, the editor has no idea what reliable sources are, and doesn't seem able to explain their research process. I don't think it's Immanuelle, but it certainly is someone who writes quite a bit like Immanuelle. Saho-hime is an example of one of their articles in mainspace. I can't really make sense of the page history (maybe there are deleted revisions in there?). Hopefully you have the ability and inclination to get further with this than I did. -- asilvering (talk) 23:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi asilvering, I looked into this enough to see that external wikis were being used, and certainly this site is not a reliable source. It looks like the most recent edits to Saho-hime removed that source and linked to Aston (though marked "Anston") directly, but I do not have the Aston Nihongi around right now and I am not sure whether this indicates that the editor now recognizes that, e.g., "Cheer up! English" is unreliable. Of course, the entire subject area tends to be problematic. From my perspective there are not too many issues with writing about characters in these works if they are treated as fictional or legendary, but when it is recognized that we have no reliable sources then the issue of notability arises. At that point perhaps there isn't much difference between how we treat these figures and minor biblical ones; a single article along the lines of List of minor New Testament figures would probably be preferable to a lot of articles along the lines of Elizabeth (biblical figure), but for my part I don't know if it is possible to explain what separates the notability of biblical figures from those in Nihongi. I will try to keep an eye on the behavioral side of this if I can. Asking you not to review drafts as a result of how you are actually checking sources is not encouraging. Dekimasuよ! 02:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any valid reason why did you remove or delete the article for The Twins at St. Clare's (the book) just to make room (or replace it with) for the page for the anime? Considering that TMS also uses that title for the anime's international releases. All of the other sequels in the St. Clare's book series all have pages, but now the first one's missing and now everybody is gonna confuse that this name which was used in the book was also used for the anime (albeit for international releases). If there's any problem or solution, please let me know to figure this out, thanks! VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004 (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. This was my error, and everything is back where it should be now. Separately, all of the existing articles on the individual books in the series appear to consist solely of plot summaries (there are actually four, and the others redirect to the series because they were eliminated under WP:BLAR). Those articles either need to be improved to show their notability or should be redirected back to the series page, which also doesn't do a great job of establishing notability. But for now this was my mistake as I had missed the switch from "tales" to "twins". Best, Dekimasuよ! 20:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The King Cup is a huge mistake that no social media outlet, let alone a huge encyclopedia, should be involved in spreading. What do you propose to clean up this long-running mess? I hope you get my point. EpicAdventurer (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My recommendation is to make one and only one move request using the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting multiple page moves, including all of the articles that you think should be moved. You should propose titles that do not conflict with other titles, such as titles that end with "(Saudi Arabia)". If the Thai cup is not the primary topic for the phrase "King's Cup", then you can also propose that those pages be moved to titles that end with "(Thailand)". However, you should not request moves for any articles in cases in which the actual name for the tournament used at the time was "King Cup". The main problem with the way moves are being requested now is that they are being done one at a time and are requesting titles that remain ambiguous. Best, Dekimasuよ! 03:29, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, in response to this comment, would you mind checking if everything was done correctly here? Thanks, RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance it looks completely correct. Sometimes there are objections to disambiguation pages that have only two entries (personally I think they are fine, but we have WP:ONEOTHER), and normally it would be good to see a short description after the entries on the disambiguation page, but this seems great. Let me know if you have any other questions! Dekimasuよ! 02:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this move closure, I want to draw attention to the fact that this has now triggered an attempt to speedy rename category LGBT to LGBTQ and all similarly named categories, affecting tens of thousands of articles.

With that in mind, the fact that the opener notified only one project, and none of the other projects that are affected (eg. WP:HISTORY and WP:BIOGRAPHY) strikes me as WP:CANVASSING. Could you reconsider the close and re-open with wider notification? Void if removed (talk) 09:36, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I do not believe that the consensus of the discussion was in question, that the neutrally worded WikiProject notification was inappropriate, or that the number of articles affected should prevent the community from renaming articles. I see little in the discussion that leads me to believe it represented an unrepresentative cross-section of the editorship or a local consensus. Whether the outcome of the move of the article should apply to particular other parts of the encyclopedia as a result of further discussion is something that again can be determined by the community. Since I find the outcome of the discussion clear, I do not intend to reopen it at this time. Of course you are free to question this at Wikipedia:Move review if necessary, and I'm sorry to have reached a conclusion with which you disagree. Best, Dekimasuよ! 09:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the thoughtful response, best wishes. Void if removed (talk) 10:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to expand on this, this is the second time I have encountered a page move with significant, undiscussed implications that didn't come to light until after the fact, and I'm genuinely unsure how these should be dealt with. I don't think you could have closed it any other way, there was clear consensus, and since a move review only checks whether the close was a proper reflection of consensus there's no actual mechanism to challenge that. So it isn't necessarily that I disagree with the conclusion you reached, it is that, once a top level page is renamed, there are policy reasons (eg. WP:CONSUB) that a whole load of sub pages and categories change, and I can't quite see why that was never discussed. It is a kind of hidden, policy-driven outcome that cannot be undone, and without grounds to overturn the move it must proceed, seemingly. Maybe that's as it should be, I don't know, I just think wider participation in changes of that scale are needed, and maybe there should be guidance in WP:RM that such policy outcomes should be explicitly identified in advance? Void if removed (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The most basic mechanism to challenge the result of a previous move discussion is to start a new move discussion that reaches consensus for reversing the move (usually by arguing that a competing policy or guideline interest should take precedence). In a much more complex way it is also possible to find consensus to change the guidelines or policies upon which the move discussion hinged (and this is definitely an appropriate conversation to have through an RfC). More generally, page moves are always organized under the rubric of WP:BRD: moves, including mass moves, should not be performed unilaterally when anyone is expected to "reasonably disagree with the move", so the outcome of a single move discussion cannot be used to run roughshod over objections (WP:RMUM). At the same time, when the consensus of a previous discussion is clear, it may just slow things down to have the same result litigated over and over at each subsequent discussion. Ideally editors working with consensus in mind will be able to find a productive balance between those two poles.

I do fundamentally disagree that there was insufficient participation in the requested move discussion. Discussion and policy application must be scalable. (It is actually easier to avoid WP:LOCALCONSENSUS by working on the broader problem, or in this case the parent article, first.) WP:DETCON says that "consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." The reflection of overall policy and guidelines, rather than the number of editors involved, is what helps us determine consensus. If the implications of the move are significant, then the question is whether it causes us to do things that are contrary to policy and guidelines. Here I don't think anything like that will take place if we pay attention to the distinctions drawn by Tamzin and F4U in the move review.

(I still haven't heard from the editor who opened the move review. I have tried not to make many comments at the move review, but I would also note that this edit he made to Talk:Queer was significantly closer to inappropriate canvassing than anything that took place during the move discussion. This is not one of my primary editing areas, so if it happens that you notice any RfCs initiated in the future, assistance ensuring that they are worded neutrally per WP:RFCNEUTRAL would be appreciated.) Best, Dekimasuよ! 07:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, here I am. I apologize for not following the move review instructions. Briefly, I did tag you and this talk page discussion when I filed it, and I thought that was sufficient. I see now that I should have tagged you on the talk page. Also, I saw the rule that the move had to be discussed, but since someone else already discussed it with you and you declined, then I thought that was sufficient for me to begin.

You said that I did inappropriate canvassing. When I am accused of misconduct, I typically make an offer to talk by voice and video. I sent you a link to my scheduler; I want to meet with you, and you can accept or decline as you like, but I make myself available. I am doing this because misconduct is personal and if you feel that way, then I offer to personally communicate with you.

I have been doing LGBT+ activism for all my life. I mean well. I feel that the discussion on Wikipedia is narrow and includes little of the discourse.

I am most upset that the closure you did is already being used as justification for ending the discussion, as in Talk:Queer and Talk:LGBTQ_community#Requested_move_27_August_2024, my talking points are shut down based on the argument that everything was settled in the LGBT->LGBTQ move. Consensus is supposed to be a lasting concept and I wanted to be heard, not overturn the move. If the move were legitimate then it should have been able to pass with a few additional comments from more people. In the move review and elsewhere I have people hovering around me telling me that Wikipedia's deadline cannot be changed by a few days and since I missed the comment period, now this article has to change, and so do thousands of others. I missed the notice of the move discussion but I sure did not miss the notice that 50,000 other articles were now going to change. That move was not advertised anywhere near to the extent of its effects.

If there is to be some other action, like an RfC on moving everything, then I expect the common argument there will simply be that the LGBT->LGBTQ move is completely settled and not to be discussed further. It may not be your intent that the decision not radiate out, but I do not think your intent matters because that is what is going to happen. I regret that outcome. Bluerasberry (talk) 12:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contacting me, both here and by e-mail. I appreciate it. Unfortunately your availabilities are very difficult due to my current time zone. If it turns out to be necessary I can try to arrange something next week, but I usually handle everything on-wiki. Regarding the opening of the move review, the section on my talk page was linked but I was not pinged, in addition to not receiving a Template:Move review note notification. I was pinged to the discussion by another editor within a few hours, but would have liked to hear from you as well, since opening a move review also implies misconduct: the move review is to determine whether my close "was inconsistent with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia common practice, policies, or guidelines".

I recognize that you mean well. As far as potential misconduct is concerned, I didn't find the talk page post I linked to be neutral, because it suggested that Wikipedia's role here is to "set global standards" (requesting advocacy), offered your opinion ("I question whether 'queer' is [universal]"), and linked the move review (which is not intended to determine either of those questions). I do not think editors moving from that post to the move review would do so without prejudice, and it is foreseeable that they would comment on the content of the discussion rather than on the close. You again mention here using the RfC process, and I again suggest that moves should be discussed through the RM process. Nominations in the RM process do not need to be neutral, so it is possible you might be more comfortable with that in future discussions as well.

I have mentioned this a few times too, but there is no reason why subsequent discussion cannot take place at Talk:LGBTQ or Talk:Queer or elsewhere, particularly if there are policy- or guideline-based reasons for changing some aspect of the result. However, I would suggest that instead of focusing on the previous move request, that discussion should be forward-looking. I don't want to mischaracterize your comment that consensus is a lasting concept, but from another angle, we also know that Wikipedia:Consensus can change. That happened here, and it can happen again in the future. Being heard does not only need to take place within the format of the move request that I closed. There were policy-based arguments related to article titling made at Talk:LGBTQ which resulted in a clear consensus. You also made a policy-based (but unsourced) comment related to systemic bias and global perspective at Talk:LGBTQ community, which is part of WP:NPOV. I cannot say whether other participants in future discussions will be convinced that the global perspective argument is well founded or should take precedence over WP:AT, but in that discussion the participants disagreed rather than not hearing. Dekimasuよ! 05:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a video at Talk:LGBTQ#Late_comments_for_the_rename_of_LGBT_-_>_LGBTQ

I do not expect you to watch me for 10+ minutes but regardless, I posted my comments on the talk page of the moved article. I do not like the high-stakes bureaucratic process that makes so many changes with so little flexibility after an arbitrary deadline. I appreciate that you suggest that I can discuss the issue elsewhere, but in practice now that the move is settled, the counterargument that I am hearing is that the matter has already been settled at the LGBT/LGBTQ article.

The part about your action to which I object is you following rules designed for moving a single page when the actual situation is that the stakes are many thousands of articles, and also major global influence beyond Wikipedia into the media ecosystem. Regardless of anyone's intent, the name that Wikipedia sets for this concept will set global standards in government, policy, medicine, and more. I am not advocating that such advocacy happen, but it is just a consequence of Wikipedia's dominance as a global reference source. You have made no error by Wikipedia's rules, but Wikipedia's typical rule set should not lead to making such major sweeping changes on-wiki and beyond in such a rush. Thanks for enforcing the rules, which is what keeps Wikipedia stable and is what is supposed to happen. You have done everything you are supposed to do and I sincerely appreciate the order that you bring. Bluerasberry (talk) 13:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just as I and several other active editors of the LGBTQ space have noted in the Move Review - this discussion of the move (and the likely follow up of subtopic articles) has been ongoing for years and most editors active on the Wikiproject or any of the sub articles have been aware for as long that the move would happen when the data supports it.

It appears you haven't participated in the last few years of the prior move discussions, but it does appear you were aware of that ongoing consensus (you even noted that maybe this should just be put in an FAQ as it was so commonly known to editors involved in the space that for now the data didn't support the move (yet), until it did), so I don't know why it came as a surprise now that eventually the mainstream sentiment data would be evolving from LGBT to LGBTQ and that then, such a move would be supported as that had been the editing community's stance for a long time. Raladic (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you do redirect without text or anything similar to stop this ip with multiple socks/blocks; (al madeena in logs). created after deletion, refused clearing or any help.

Special:Contributions/2409:40F3:1094:A201:5F1:A577:18D:9819, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Madeena Cherpulassery 93.140.190.14 (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been protected against recreation, and I have deleted the draft version of the article under WP:CSD#G5. If you think a redirect is necessary despite the deletion of the article from mainspace, you may be able to discuss this with the administrator who protected the page, NinjaRobotPirate. Dekimasuよ! 00:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sevens Football: Same request here, should be last related. Cenderabird (talk) 02:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think others can take care of this. By the way, it's always possible to have a discussion arguing that the page should be a redirect, or to boldly replace all of the material with a redirect template, or to revert conversion of a redirect to an article and then engage in discussion, but please don't put a redirect template at the top of an article and leave all the contents of the article below it. Further, the similar format of both of these messages (before I edited them into wikilink form) leads me to wonder whether there is any logged-out editing going on. If there is, please see WP:EWLO. Dekimasuよ! 06:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please could you clarify the reason for this deletion [1]? I'm not familiar with this blocked user and would like to know the background. Thanks, --Viennese Waltz 07:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Viennese Waltz, the easiest answer with recent info is to point you to User talk:Graham87#Inufan socks. This editor often raises Japan-related questions (and sometimes questions on European nobility, etc.) on the reference desks. This is one of many frequently used Italian IP ranges, and is one of the main reasons I'm currently monitoring the Humanities page. Best, Dekimasuよ! 12:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. --Viennese Waltz 12:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also this edit to the Italian article on Edo Castle by one of this editor's socks. Dekimasuよ! 03:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noted today the consensus to move LGBT to LGBTQ. Should really all pages be moved accordingly? RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, not necessarily; please see my closer comments at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 September#LGBTQ and my second reply in the #LGBT -> LGBTQ move section above. Best, Dekimasuよ! 07:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. Please see User_talk:History6042#closing RM on Montserrat. Looks like you missed the fact that History6042 agreed to reopen this, because they didn't do an explicit relist :D --Joy (talk) 08:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The previous close was out of process, but the overall outcome of the request (once the week was up and the request expired) appears clear. It isn't the case that the comments of the opposers are not based in policy. Rather, discarding them would imply an unwillingness to accept that they know what WP:PTOPIC requires, since most of the opposes made explicit references to the idea of a primary topic; I understand that you added significant [information] to the discussion, but that data did not convince other editors that there is no primary topic, and in the end determination of long-term significance is not an exact science. I suppose that this could be reopened or explicitly relisted, but I doubt that would be the most productive use of our editing time.... Dekimasuよ! 08:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should assume good faith and not discard their input, but just the use of the phrase 'primary topic' doesn't have to imply that we all share a complete understanding of that admittedly complex and vague topic. Continuing the friendly discussion would be helpful to try to converge towards a common understanding. Once it is closed, this has the chilling effect of stopping discussion for a while, and it sounds like we have consensus, but we actually really don't. --Joy (talk) 09:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will reopen and relist, as you could probably tell from my previous message. However, as an uninvolved observer, what I see here is a clear argument on one side, and a clear rejection of that argument on the other. I'd suggest again that when editors refer to policy, we should listen to them, even if there is always interpretation involved in closing a discussion. Dekimasuよ! 10:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

I think the discussion closers need to have leeway to confirm that participants have followed the procedural policy that says When referencing shortcuts or policy pages, verify they support the points you're making (WP:ADHERENCE).

Likewise, if the closer sees a rejection, but it's not coupled with reasons, they need to be free to request that the discussion produces some more reasons, otherwise we're missing structured discussions rather than voting (WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS). --Joy (talk) 10:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dekimasu. Thank you for taking the time to close Talk:John_Jefferson_(American_football). In your close, you wrote that there was a a lack of agreement that this page is the primary topic of "John Jefferson" However, WP:RMCIDC advises that a lack of consensus among participants along with no clear indication from policy and conventions normally means that no change happens. Can you clarify why the page wasn't instead left at its status quo title, John Jefferson, if there was no consensus on the PT status? Thanks in advance.—Bagumba (talk) 11:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The default is to place a disambiguation page at the base title when there is no agreement that a primary topic exists. The fact that this conflicts with the general guidance regarding the outcomes of discussions ("normally" here) is likely why closers left this move discussion open for over a month despite discussion having died down two weeks ago. However, the discussion as a whole logically indicates that the page move should be performed; rather than simply state that there was consensus in favor of the move, I attempted to be more descriptive here. There have been discussions of this sort of situation from time to time at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves, but it is taking me a while to find a proper example. Dekimasuよ! 12:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of discussion on this at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 51#No consensus in primary topic discussions from 2019, for example, where I wrote that the sort of close you are asking about here "has been done on a case-by-case basis for over 10 years now, although it might have become less frequent since the implementation of move review, since there are some editors who feel it's out of process." That discussion appears to have been closed without action. Here's another: Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 47#Less radically from 2018. In the "still less radically" section below that, I wrote, "I do believe there are times when discussion showing that there is no strong consensus in favor of moving a primary topic out of the way can also be good evidence that a dab should be at the base title... and I believe I have closed discussions like that, rarely, in the past. Usually I would be likely to let the request sit for longer than usual in that event to see if the discussion will straighten itself out." I am sure there are other similar discussions and move outcomes out there but the size of my move log makes it difficult to find them quickly. Hope this helps for the time being, but please let me know if this is insufficient. Best, Dekimasuよ! 12:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. Ideally, the closing instructions should be updated. Not sure if you'd want to update the close to reference the precedents you cited here, but I'll respect whatever you decide. Thanks again.—Bagumba (talk) 13:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dekimasu, would you please finalize the move by cleaning up the remaining links that need to be disambiguated. Here is the link to those left: [2] Thank you. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of the links I could see on the "What links here" page earlier were the result of template transclusions, which I fixed immediately. As I noted in my edit summary here, I could not do more because database lag was causing the templated links to still show in "What links here", and I was receiving regex timeout issues when attempting to get the actual list by inserting insource:/\[\[John Jefferson]/ in the search bar. If there is a workable list I will look at it soon (and hopefully get back to Bagumba again as well), but it's currently 1AM here. Best, Dekimasuよ! 15:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HI thanks for your close, but can you clarify how there was a consensus to move this page? It seems that there was roughly an equal number of participants to move versus not, and the nominator is banned. Andre🚐 19:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Andrevan, thanks for your question. The number of editors is not the determining factor here, but in addition to the editors who supported this title, multiple editors commented in favor of this or a similar title without marking their comments with "support" (Barrelproof and Fnlayson). The first opposer also eventually wrote "just attack might be the cleanest solution". Regarding the original request, while it was initiated by a blocked sock, other editors in good standing supported a move, so this is not grounds for procedural closure under WP:RMEC. Instead the opinion of the sock is disregarded, and in fact the sock did not advocate for quite the title to which the article was moved (note as well that the second opposer currently has a block for disruption related to Israel–Palestine articles, and even that editor supported making some type of move). This leaves the discussion of common names, but there was no agreement that a common name for this event has been established; both the original title and the new title are descriptive titles in this case, as expected according to WP:NCWWW. On balance there was a clear consensus in favor of some move, and this target enjoyed the broadest support. Best, Dekimasuよ! 04:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I think there might have been an error in the recent RM discussion on Talk: FIU Stadium. The RM discussion got added to [WikiProject Football]'s page, but that wikiproject is about association football, also known in the United States as soccer. However, the stadium in question hosts primarily American football. I think that this mistake caused the RM to have views and opinions that aren't expressive of of the actual correct wikiproject, Wikipedia:WikiProject College football. (These opinions being, namely, that sponsored names aren't used in titles of articles. See L&N Federal Credit Union Stadium, Jones AT&T Stadium, SHI Stadium as examples). Would it be possible to relist the RM discussion with the correct link? Thanks! Esb5415 (talk) (C) 01:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does appear that the RM discussion missed the relevant WP:NAMECHANGES guidelines, which is applied pretty universally for US stadiums and results in basically immediate name changes for stadiums.

It does appear that this confusion stemmed from the wrong Wikiproject having been notified and having attracted a lot of non-US opinions, which may not be as aware that RS in the US adopts renamed stadium names basically immediately, which is why NAMECHANGES applies and those stadiums get renamed on the day of announcements typically, so relisting it and informing the appropriate American football Wikiproject seems in order.

It also might be appropriate to make an amendment note of the difference of application to the NAMECHANGES policy between US and non-US stadiums to avoid such confusion in the future? Raladic (talk) 02:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The point that reliable sources may react to name changes differently in different areas is fair, but changes to article names should be handled on a case-by-case basis according to actual evidence. Immediate changes on the days of announcements (to company names, buildings, etc.), are often reverted. In part this is because there is often reporting on the fact of the name change itself, whereas when the locations or organizations are referred to again in later material, the authors return to the more familiar name. In part this is because the new name may not yet be considered recognizable. In part this is because editors may assert directly that a name should be used because it is official, which attracts criticism because it is contrary to policy. In theory there should not be a difference between the application of policy to stadiums inside and outside the United States, although with sufficient justification a separate naming convention might be possible. Dekimasuよ! 02:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. I don’t have a horse in this race, but it might nonetheless be something that might be worth bringing up in a larger forum on general naming conventions as while I agree with your theoretical point that there shouldn’t be a difference, I think there might be a practical difference that is the leagues (whether it’s NFL, MLB, NHL, MLS or the college leagues) in the US which have a very tight grip on the reporting of sports (which is also how it differs from the rest of the world where the leagues don’t also own the rights of the teams), which is probably why US sport reporting RS is so quick to basically immediately adopt new stadium names as there’s probably some contractual things in play as well. Raladic (talk) 05:09, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of WikiProjects is always optional, and WikiProjects do not control naming whether articles are within their purview or not. However, according to the article the stadium in question is the home of both a professional soccer team and a college football team, so the notification does not seem to have been incorrect or inappropriate. The participants in the discussion do not appear to have agreed that WP:NAMECHANGES was satisfied, whether that was because the information provided was anecdotal (rather than showing a proportion of current usage), because of consistency with the outcome of other discussions and naming choices (as mentioned), or because the sources were considered insufficiently independent or reliable (there were three sources given in the discussion: one photo caption, one article affiliated with the university which granted the naming rights, and one article that is primarily a rewrite of a press release by an event organizer that was renting the stadium). That this discussion would not have led to a consensus to move the page is clear, so instead of reopening the current request, I would suggest returning with a new request later if and when better evidence can be provided. Dekimasuよ! 02:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So if I'm hearing you correctly, if one can provide better WP:NAME CHANGE, starting a new RM discussion wouldn't be inappropriate? Sorry, I'm a new editor, trying to learn. Esb5415 (talk) (C) 12:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, re-reading, I think I understand. Would you or Raladic be willing to help me for this RM request? Thanks! Esb5415 (talk) (C) 12:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Something like this...I made this in my sandbox. Obviously I understand this isn't the RM discussion, just looking for feedback on this proposal.

Articles talking about the rename in the immediate aftermath of the rename

• Pitbull buys naming rights to FIU football stadium - ESPN
• Dale! Pitbull signs deal to have football stadium at Florida International University named after him - NBC
• FIU Stadium renamed after Miami-born rapper Pitbull - Florida Phoenix
• Pitbull Is Paying Over $5 Million to Name Florida International’s Football Stadium After Himself - Rolling Stone

Articles talking about "inside" the renaming deal

• Inside the deal for Pitbull Stadium - Venues Now
• What a university's deal with Pitbull says about changing economics in college sports - NPR

Articles mentioning Pitbull Stadium, but not talking about the naming rights

• ‘Dale FIU!’ Pitbull Stadium era kicks off with a bang during Panthers’ football home opener - Miami Herald
• - Bulldogs drop CUSA opener to FIU Panthers - KTAL Shreveport "Timely penalties proved too costly for Louisiana Tech as the Bulldogs dropped the Conference USA opener to FIU, 17-10, on Saturday night at Pitbull Stadium."
• FHSAA extends high school football regular season after Hurricanes Helene, Milton hit state - Palm Beach Post. "FHSAA Executive Director Craig Damon also announced that the FHSAA has reached an agreement to hold the football state championships for Classes 7A-1A at Pitbull Stadium in Miami from Dec. 11-14."
• FIU debuts Pitbull Stadium name in season opener - SBJ

WP:NAMECHANGES says for us to "give extra weight to independent, reliable, English-language sources ("reliable sources" for short) written after the name change. If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match." Meanwhile searching Google News for "FIU Stadium" returns only mentions in articles saying the stadium is now currently Pitbull Stadium.

WP:CRITERIA says for "The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles." In the United States, stadiums are renamed pretty quickly to the sponsored name. I can't find a specific policy or RM discussion for this, but I feel that is because changing article names is so commonplace.

College football stadiums renamed to sponsored names from non-sponsored names:

• Cardinal Stadium -> L&N Federal Credit Union Stadium
• Clifford B. & Audrey Jones Stadium -> Jones AT&T Stadium
• Rutgers Stadium -> SHI Stadium
• New North Texas Mean Green Stadium -> DATCU Stadium
• Spartan Stadium -> CEFCU Stadium
• ASU Stadium -> Centennial Bank Stadium
• Georgia State Stadium -> Center Parc Stadium
• etc...I stopped looking, but can create a full list if that is needed.

Soccer stadiums in the United States also get renamed pretty quickly to sponsored names, although there are fewer examples since most MLS stadiums have always had sponsored names.

• Sporting Park -> Children's Mercy Park
• Nashville SC Stadium -> Geodis Park
• Orlando City Stadium -> Inter&Co Stadium
• Seahawks Stadium -> Lumen Field
• Earthquakes Stadium -> PayPal Park
• West End Stadium -> TQL Stadium

Esb5415 (talk) (C) 13:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I started the RM process again and people are saying it is too soon to bring up the discussion again, and aren't commenting on the merits of the RM.

Talk:FIU Stadium#Requested move 21 October 2024

Esb5415 (talk) (C) 02:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you move again this dab? The page was based on this redirect, therefore there's ambiguity and the redirect contradicts the DAB title. Web-julio (talk) 03:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't understand your request. The disambiguation page was created at LGBTQ in Chile and then moved to LGBTQ in Chile (disambiguation) without altering the redirect, creating a WP:MALPLACED dab. That title never redirected anywhere else, and my only action was to remove the unnecessary disambiguator.

If you think that LGBTQ topics in Chile should be moved to LGBTQ in Chile or that LGBTQ in Chile should be moved to LGBTQ in Chile (disambiguation) or LGBTQ topics in Chile (disambiguation) in order to make space for a primary topic redirect, you can start a move request. I'm not sure which solution is ideal, so I would prefer to hear input from others instead of taking additional action myself. Best, Dekimasuよ! 04:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

You're right. I was looking at the page views and Google hits, but I didn't fully consider the incoming links, which are predominantly for the town rather than the period. Thanks for picking this up. SilkTork (talk) 10:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]