User talk:Station1

My Talk Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

• Discussions from 2007 through 2010 have been archived here. 2011 through 2015 are archived here. 2016 through 2020 are archived here. Please start new discussions in a new section at the bottom.

Regarding your recent reversion with the edit summary "Please do not change people's meaning and flow of conversation", what about the meaning was changed, in your view? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 06:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was VineFynn agreeing that "This needs to be Afd’d" or with "Not news"? But primarily, you took a section not related to the RM, where JPxG explained why, prior to the RM, he reverted my previous move to Keith Gill (investor), to make it seem like he was making an argument in this RM and that everyone who replied or commented after that point had taken those comments into account. Station1 (talk) 07:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was VineFynn agreeing that "This needs to be Afd’d" or with "Not news"? Those two quotations are, in fact, from the same comment, so likely both. But in any case it was a direct response to both, which is what is relevant here.

Anyway, how was it not "related to the RM"? It was an argument for retaining the existing page name posted in response to the initiation of an RM. Surely you aren't suggesting otherwise. And should that discussion not be closed at the same time as the RM? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Likely" isn't good enough when messing with another editor's comments. Probably it was simply an indentation mistake, or maybe the editor knew exactly what he was doing. Either way, if it's important enough to change, it's important enough to ask the editor what their intention was before assuming anything. As to the separate section, people already made comments in that section, not in the RM, and people also already made comments in the RM but not in that section. There is no overriding reason to combine them at this late date. And yes, they are related in that they both involve moving the article, but as I said, it was an explanation of a previous move that was created in good faith. And not being part of the RM, there's nothing to close. Station1 (talk) 07:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Likely" isn't good enough when messing with another editor's comments. Please read what I wrote more carefully. It is likely he was agreeing with both but it certain that it is a direct response to both given that both quotations are from the exact same comment.

Regarding the more substantive issue here, should both discussions be closed at the same time in your view, then? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 07:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, there's nothing to close. If an admin wants to include both sections in one archive, that's up to the closer, But I wouldn't. Station1 (talk) 07:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But we're agreed that the contents of the latter section are only relevant insofar as they are relevant to the RM, right? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. It's JPxG's explanation of why he reverted my move before the RM was proposed. Would JPxG have written it if the RM was not proposed? I'm guessing not, but it's defensible as a standalone section, even if the RM didn't exist. Station1 (talk) 07:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Keith Gill (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 22:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of that. Now that Keith Gill is at its proper title, there's certainly no longer any use for a dab page. Station1 (talk) 03:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you make of Talk:Tier 3 (nightclub)#Requested move 18 October 2020 now? Since then a new The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England) Regulations 2020 article has been created and the Tier 3 DAB now gets more views (207) than the nightclub (195) even though no areas have been in tier 3 since 6 January (all of England was moved to tier 4) interestingly before areas were moved into tier 4 nearly 70% of England was in tier 3 which is likely significantly more people than have even been in the nightclub. There is more on this in this video and here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In 2019, Tier 3 was averaging 10 hits per day. Over the past 20 days, Tier 3 is averaging 10 hits per day. Generally speaking, I think when there's only one article that needs a particular title, that article should get the title, and any disambiguation can be handled by hatnotes. There are exceptions where PRIMARYREDIRECT comes into play, but the legitimate need for one article to hog two titles is rare. And a dab page is of no more benefit than a hatnote. That said, it looks like all uses of "tier 3" as a title on WP are fairly low, so I don't think it matters a great deal. As you know, most readers get where they want to be despite whatever titles we decide on. Station1 (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the fact that the basename gets more views than the qualified title suggest that its likely that a majority are not seeking the nightclub? Note that its unlikely most of those are from me since I mainly used Tier 4 (or as of recently the full title since I remembered it) to search for the All Tier regulations.

Regarding articles being at their best title what would you do with Port Charlotte? According to you're arguments at Talk:Nightcaps, New Zealand#Requested move 1 July 2020 and Talk:Novae (fortress)#Requested move 29 June 2020 Port Charlotte is the preferred title for the village in Scotland and Port Charlotte, Florida is the preferred title for the CDP in the United States. As you can see the American one is much larger (54,392) than the Scottish one (350) and has way more views (6,865 v 272[[1]]) but according to you're arguments we could put the Scottish village at the base name since its common usage to included the state and readers and editors are used to this and readers using plain "Port Charlotte" would only have 1 click while those looking for the American one would have 1 click either way. IMO there is no primary topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On your first point, since Tier 3 is getting about the same number of hits as in pre-Covid 2019 (ahh, remember pre-Covid?...but I digress), I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say it's likely, but I will agree it's certainly possible. But the nightclub is still the only article that actually needs the precise name "Tier 3", and even if most people want an article about Covid regs, they are no worse off with a direct hatnote than with a dab page.

On your second point, U.S. places are somewhat of a special case due to their naming guideline. In many cases they are primary topics for their name both with and without the state. In a case like Port Charlotte, Florida, where the views are more than 25 times the only other article, one could make a case that PRIMARYREDIRECT does apply. However, Port Charlotte is not a PRIMARYREDIRECT, and you left that dab page off your pageview chart. It gets only 2 hits per day, compared to 327 for Port Charlotte, Florida. Even if both those 2 people want the Florida town, it doesn't make a huge difference for 2 people to make one extra click. So then the same logic holds as in the Tier 3 example. If those 2 people click on a hatnote on the Scottish article instead of a dab page, they are no worse off. Therefore I would have no problem with the Scottish article being at Port Charlotte. But again, it makes little difference. Station1 (talk) 03:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the fact that the Tier 3 DAB getting slightly more views than the nightclub article as opposed to the Port Charlotte DAB getting around 0.5% of the American CDP not indicate that in the Tier 3 case many aren't/weren't looking for the nightclub with "Tier 3"? Now its probable that a few people landing on the DAB page have come from external websites or search engines that haven't update but I doubt very many. From what I can see looking back in time[[2]] is that the nightclub does appear to get slightly less views than it did a few years ago but not much less. Now I'd expect that aside from people landing on the DAB and giving up there are 2 factors that favour the nightclub getting more views than previously. The 1st being that the nightclub article has been expanded so its more likely to show up in searches etc, the 2nd is that its possible a few people looking for one of the regulations click on the nightclub out of interest, see the 2nd to last point at Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing#Miscellaneous things to be aware of. Also since the RM there are now 2 regulations, the 1st being a separate regulation covered in First COVID-19 tier regulations in England even though we could theoretically have a separate article on it at Tier 3 (regulations) (or The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Local COVID-19 Alert Level) (Very High) (England) Regulations 2020) even though we've combined them since they are very closely related and are better in 1 article. But also given the 2nd (which is part of a larger legislation namely The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England) Regulations 2020) that would mean we would have to clutter the nightclub with 2 hatnotes for regulations and one for the DAB.

A DAB page is easier to load than an article and is more neutral than a somewhat arbitrary choice or PT based on NC etc. Would you actually support making either Port Charlotte primary? even though you noted it would make little difference. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I agree that it's possible that many people landing on the Tier 3 dab page want something other than the nightclub, but there's no easy way to prove how many, so absent actual title conflicts, I generally prefer the topic that needs the title to have it, especially when relatively "many" is not large in absolute numbers. But it's not clear cut and not a big deal that there's a dab page at the title.

And I would neither support nor oppose a change to Port Charlotte. With only two contenders for the title, I don't think a dab page is necessary, but I certainly wouldn't bother to take the trouble to try to change it. Station1 (talk) 05:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You said back in October that "If the trend is up significantly over the next few weeks, there will be a case for a dab page. Otherwise, a hatnote should be enough." And the trend is up significantly after 5 months and the fact that there's another so as noted we'd need 2 hatnotes and a 3rd for the DAB. If the DAB gets more views that surely provides strong evidence that they indeed do not want the nightclub and are more likely searching for one of the several other uses. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But the trend is not up. It has been remarkably consistent, with the exception of a significant spike (undoubtedly Covid-related) in mid-late December.[3] In 2019 Tier 3 averaged 10 hits per day. In 2020 it averaged 12 hits per day because of that spike. In 2021 so far, it's averaging 8 hits per day. Are some of those 8 people looking for Covid regs? Sure. Is it reasonable to have a dab page there? Yes. Is it necessary? No. Station1 (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well it has been up at least for a DAB v article expected rate (compared to the Port Charlotte rate). In 2019 the base name averaged 10 hits a day when the nightclub 3 sentence stub was there but people could have been looking for one of the other uses such as those already in the hatnote. In 2020 the views went up with the spikes from the 2 regulations which you already agreed was the case. Now in 2021 the fact the nightclub gets around 6 a day[[4]] (despite being significantly expanded) while the DAB gets 10 surely shows that people probably haven't been seeking the nightclub back in 2019 etc. Compared Chesterfield as an example, prior to the move of the Derbyshire town from the base name in mid February the town got around 273 views a day while the DAB got 41[[5]], which is a larger number of views for a DAB with a primary topic suggesting most of the small percentage of internal searchers were looking for something else. In the last 20 days the town in Derbyshire has averaged 194 with the DAB being 120[[6]] and you can see after the move there was a shift[[7]] and that's an article who's content hasn't changed significantly unlike the nightclub's expansion. Now its reasonable to assume that some of those extra 80 people a day using the DAB gave up (and some people didn't use WP at all due to the DAB showing up in Google) but it does show that after around 6 weeks the Derbyshire article gets more views but with Tier 3 the DAB still gets more views even after almost 5 months suggests people aren't looking for the nightclub. As can be seen there were indeed spikes in October and December[[8]] from the different regulations. And yes there's a video here reflecting the last year. Notice from 1:45 at 2:00 Boris pointing about not closing things in low prevalence areas and 2:35 discussing the 2nd tier system. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's possible that some, many, most or even all of the people who ever landed on Tier 3 were looking for something other than the nightclub. Until recently there was nothing else of significance on WP, so no need for even a Tier 3 (disambiguation) page. Covid unquestionably changed that. But since the nightclub is still the only article that would use the precise title "Tier 3" (i.e., there's no actual title conflict), and since there's not enough evidence to make Tier 3 a PRIMARYREDIRECT to a Covid article, and since large numbers of readers would not be any more inconvenienced by clicking on a hatnote than on a dab page (even if all 8 daily hits really want something else), I prefer giving the basic title to the article that really needs the title. But, as I said, it's not a big deal either way. Station1 (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was (presumably) nothing else of significance called "Tier 3" before the regulations but prior to the regulations there were 2 hatnotes and info for a firm in Pakistan also once was in the article. There may not be sufficient evidence to make "Tier 3" a primary redirect to one of the regulations (now you'd have to ask which one, probably the 2nd since more people were in tier 3 then though the 1st was as noted a separate regulation so I'd say neither anyway) but is there sufficient evidence that the nightclub is primary? I don't think so, in any case the evidence that we do have in addition to the views already provided is that as of now a Google search only returns the regulations and Images returns almost all results for the regulations and none for the nightclub. In terms of common usage I'd note that its likely that nearly everyone in England knows what tier 3 (regulations) is but how many people even in New York city know what Tier 3 (nightclub) is? Had you heard of the nightclub before the discussion and what does Google and Images return for you? So while the nightclub may have greater long-term significance that seems dubious given its possible around 100x the number of people have spent time the the regulations than the nightclub. If the October RM had have been "no consensus" I'd probably have started a new RM when the 2nd tier regulations came out even though we don't normally have a RM shortly after the same proposal since that would change the hatnote argument anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first hatnote was a 'distinguish' type hatnote with a redirect to something that formerly had been called Tier III- (Tier three minus) in its developmental stage, and the second to an article about data centers that mentions Tier III (note not 3) exactly once, between Tier II and Tier IV in a section about standards at data centers. Neither article would ever be titled Tier 3 and it's unlikely that anyone was searching for either topic at Tier 3, much less that they could make Tier 3 not primary. The Pakistani security firm ad was properly removed by the first editor who noticed; it's unlikely to ever have a WP article. Our basic difference of opinion boils down to whether or not the primary topic concept comes into play where there is no actual title conflict (two or more articles that could have identical titles). I think it does not, except in rare circumstances where a significant majority of readers are really looking for something else under the title. If Tier 3 had been attracting 10 views per day in 2019 and now was attracting 100 views a day in 2021, it would be obvious that 90% of readers want something else and that the nightclub should give up its claim to its natural title, but without that kind of evidence, I wouldn't have moved it. Station1 (talk) 06:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The difference of opinions boils down to WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT and WP:ATDAB which are clear in that the final title isn't really important though PRIMARYREDIRECT isn't that clear on topics that are covered in a broader article (WP:SONGDAB says only notable songs are relevant) but in this case the topic is covered significantly rather than merely mentioned so I think PRIMARYREDIRCT does apply since the articles are combined due to having a significant overlap rather than being NN. Given around 95% of people get to the article they want regardless we can probably assume most of the 207 views were not looking for the nightclub with 195 but I'd suggest the numbers may be lower than normal due to the recent move so maybe 90% get to the nightclub regardless so around 90% of the 207 weren't looking for the nightclub. The 2nd comment made by JHunterJ here seems on the point but maybe this should be discussed at WT:D. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at the first sentence of WP:ATDAB, which is the policy about titles that you linked. It says: "It is not always possible to use the exact title that may be desired for an article, as that title may have other meanings, and therefore may have been already used for other articles". Now if we apply that to the case of Tier 3, first we decide if the exact title we desire for the article about the nightclub is "Tier 3". It is, because that's the precise name of the club. Next, does that title have other meanings? Yes, it does, for example a Covid reg. Finally, is that title used for other articles? No, it isn't. But, could that title be used for other articles currently on WP? Not really; it's not the exact title we desire for the Covid article, which is better at a different title. But, could that title be used as a PRIMARYREDIRECT for the Covid article? Here's where we need to decide on a case-by-case basis whether an article with a different title is also primary for a second title. There are cases where it will be. Does the article about Covid regs rise to the level where it's clear that most people expect that article to appear under the title "Tier 3". Evidence suggests that it is not at all clear, and in fact the title is not being used as a PRIMARYREDIRECT. Therefore, each article should be at its respective best title, with hatnotes for readers who want a different article. Station1 (talk) 08:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes its used for other meanings namely the coronavirus topics even though those topics don't use the title directly. The fact the nightclub is the only one that (currently) uses the title directly isn't the point per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT and in any case that argument would fail if someone decided to create a separate article on either of the 2 tier 3s such as at Tier 3 (first regulations) and Tier 3 (second regulations). If such articles did exist I have little doubt that they would get a comparable number of views to the nightclub. The test in this case is if the nightclub is primary or not, just because there may not be sufficient evidence of the regulations doesn't mean its automatically the nightclub (per WP:NOPRIMARY especially when the DAB has 6 entries rather than just 1 or 2). The evidence presented anyway by both of us seems to suggest its the regulations if anything per Google and the difference in views. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we agree that if someone were to write Tier 3 (first regulations) and/or Tier 3 (second regulations), the nightclub would almost certainly not be the primary topic among identically titled articles and therefore should be at Tier 3 (nightclub) (at least for the next several months; let's all hope not forever). But those articles don't exist, and a PRIMARYREDIRECT does not exist, so unless and until one of those things exists and puts a claim on the title, the nightclub is the only topic using the basic title, so there's no reason to make the title artificial when a hatnote would work just as well. Station1 (talk) 23:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement that the articles have actually been created, as I said its better for readers to have all 3/4 tiers in 1 article instead of having standalone articles, that doesn't change their primacy. There is no requirement that that we go as far as making a differently titled topic primary for PRIMARYREDIRECT to apply, it says that having a different title is not a factor in determining the primacy of a topic, that also applies to lack or primacy. A hatnote would not work well since as noted there are 2 regulations plus the DAB. The nightclub appeared to only exist for around 21 months so its not like only the regulations are just something passing. The Pimple article displaces both comic strips for Zit(s) but it doesn't replace them which is why there is a DAB at Zit and Zits redirects to it. If you disagree that the actual title should should not be a factor in primacy perhaps you should start a discussion on that. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A hatnote on Zits would be fine, as would a hatnote on Tier 3, but both have been discussed already and neither is important enough to reopen in my opinion. Station1 (talk) 23:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside the issue on what the PAGs say about the title how many hatnotes would you add to Tier 3? assuming the nightclub was at the basename today (as opposed to in October when there was only 1 regulation). Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just one. I would probably put just a link to the dab page. But it would also be reasonable to add something like {{Otheruses|Tier 3 (disambiguation)|First COVID-19 tier regulations in England|Second COVID-19 tier regulations in England}}. It takes up less than a line on my screen. Station1 (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 1st would require many (probably most) readers to have to make 2 clicks to find the intended article and the 2nd would still clutter the article even if it only takes less than a line. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd also note that WP:PRECISE says WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is an exception to the general rule of being precise enough to be ambiguous namely that Energy is preferable to Energy (physics) since its precise enough to be understood by most people, I don't see how this would apply to Tier 3. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't apply to Tier 3. I count about 25 topics whose articles would be titled "Energy", but there is only one that would reasonably be titled "Tier 3". The concept of a primary topic does not apply when there is only one topic that could reasonably be expected to be at a title. Station1 (talk) 02:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The 2 regulations still likely count per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT since the topic is covered significantly in both. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  But neither one is the PRIMARYREDIRECT (and of course it would impossible for both to be primary). Tier 3 is a dab page, so PRIMARYDIRECT is irrelevant. Station1 (talk) 06:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Nether is the PRIMARYREDIRECT, that's the point! there isn't a primary topic since as you know no 2 pages can have the same title so that's why the DAB is there. That is to say its not possible to have "Tier 3" as the title of the nightclub, a redirect to the 1st regulations or a redirect to the 2nd regulations. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: this article move, are you referring to the 2008 RM, or is there a more recent one that I missed? 162 etc. (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 2008. Things may have changed since then, but if so, a new RM is the way to go. Station1 (talk) 14:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Perfect 10#Requested move 21 May 2021. 162 etc. (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your change of this longstanding redirect. I see no evidence that the film challenges the neighborhood as the primary topic of the term. BD2412 T 06:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I was basing it on pageviews, but the hatnote you added works. Station1 (talk) 03:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pageviews are susceptible to recentism. That being said, if this trend persists, the question may be ripe for WP:RFD. BD2412 T 04:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is you're view on what should happen to this page? Would you argue that because Howe Green, Chelmsford is the only one with an article and is the largest that it should be at the base name? Also what about the single word namely Howegreen of which the one in Maldon is the only one it can be at that title rather than Howegreen, Maldon which is why I G7ed the redirect back in 2018. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would say Howe Green, Chelmsford should be at Howe Green because it is the only one with an article (but not because it is the largest; that is irrelevant). And also yes, I would say Howegreen should be at that title if there is only one article with that title. I'm assuming Howe Green is usually spelled as two words and Howegreen is usually spelled as one word. Of course, I would put hatnotes on each article to avoid any possible confusion. Station1 (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is size irrelevant? Size is an indicator that its most likely searched for given the others are hamlets. Indeed the Maldon one is spelled with just 1 word though the road is with 2. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should have said size is not directly relevant. Yes, most often the largest will be more likely to have an article than a smaller place of the same name. But hypothetically, even if this Howe Green had an article but there was some other Howe Greene triple the size that did not have an article, the one with the article still gets the base name unless and until an article about the larger town is written. Station1 (talk) 00:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:PRIMARYRED "When a disambiguation page lists only one existing article by that name (all other suggested articles are red-linked), the normal rules for primary topic still apply. The existing article is not automatically the primary topic" so if a larger one had not yet been created the smaller one would not automatically be the primary topic see this for example. In practice I guess most people will consider that if there is only 1 article and we don't know the popularity of the others due to being red links most will just have the only blue link at the base name and wait and see views once others are created. With Howe Green there is some debate about if OS settlements are considered automatically notable but if they are it could probably be argued that the Chelmsford one is primary. As can be seen it was moved to Howe Green, Essex to make way for a DAB and then again due to the others in Essex. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing my stupid error at Talk:Psophiidae. If I realized it was just the talk page that was a red link, I wouldn't have even bothered creating the redirect. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It just happened to pop up on my watchlist due to an RM that I had already forgotten about. Station1 (talk) 05:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was unintentional. Thanks for the revert. Robvanvee 10:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the initial vote. The 2006 article has been reworked and linked. Kindly revote. DareshMohan (talk) 13:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Do you have a ref that ☉ is the symbol for a used stamp in general, and not for a postmark cancel? Michel (2007) states without caveat that it is the latter: they say on p. 18, "☉ = mit Poststempel entwertet" (canceled with a postmark). I'm trying to figure these symbols out because we appear to have no guide on WP as to what they mean. Thanks. (Please ping me if you respond.) — kwami (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami: Please see https://www.airmailandspace.com/en/content/10-symbols-and-abbreviations for one example. To the best of my knowledge there is not one standard set of symbols, and different dealers and catalogs may use different symbols, but the symbol you show (or the same without the dot in the middle) is very commonly used to denote a used stamp, either with a postmark or other cancellation, including pen cancels or none at all where the stamp is commonly left uncancelled. Note that "cancelled with postmark" in your reference refers to the stamp being cancelled, not to the postmark itself. I hope this is helpful. Station1 (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've read the catalogues all used pretty much the same system, though it makes sense that (T) would be specifically German. — kwami (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2015 Zvornik police station shooting on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By your deliberately posting personal attacks, actually self-labelled as such, on my Talk page, I am reminded of times when you along with others, succeeded in heaping abuse in my direction, in a pattern which seemed like deliberate bullying to drag a decent person down. Your recent accusation blasted on my Talk page is that I termed your action on one page in 2019 as vandalism. Indeed, at an obscure Talk page with a ping to you but without broadcast to anyone else, I stated, exactly "I don't know why User:Station1 [deleted it] in 2019, seems to me like that was effectively vandalism, oh well." That's not the most abusive thing ever said in Wikipedia. I was indeed disappointed to find that you had deleted carefully constructed material, set up with technically proper supporting bluelink(s) per excessively strange rules, the kind of material that I developed painstakingly over years, though in fact I did not develop the specific item on that page. I stated that you appeared in violation of the disambiguation page rules, as the technically required supporting bluelink was in place; your not responding seems to me to indicate your concession of that point. However I gather that you do not, will not apologize; I gather that is your policy. Your repeated posting at my Talk page with blazing title and your not responding at the obscure Talk page, appear to show who you are, what you are about.

This is your page, you can tell me not to post here and I will obey that if you do. If you want to fling accusations, with colorful discussion section titles and/or edit summaries, you can do so here. I may respond or not. Thank you. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 23:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{subst:Rfd notice|Bow Wow (singer)}} ~~~~ ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 14:50, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sir @Station1 Can you help me to move this draft https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Om_Murti_Anil to mainspace if it is ready. Gauravs 51 (talk) 07:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I see this article has a complex history. I do not have time to research at the moment. I will try to look into it when I have more time, but cannot promise anything. Is this draft substantially different from the versions that were previously deleted? Station1 (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Using maps as sources on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2023 Karnataka Legislative Assembly election on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article A Complete Unknown (film) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Complete Unknown (film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Rusted AutoParts 05:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Station1 (talk) 05:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Gingerbread Man (Shrek) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 7 § Gingerbread Man (Shrek) until a consensus is reached. 2607:FEA8:761B:C900:4DD9:7138:4DA4:D669 (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Professional Photographers of America, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 02:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:WikiProject Telecommunications/Area codes RfC on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Article titles on a "Wikipedia style and naming" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Daher Kodiak on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your contributions. If you choose to WP:BRD, then please don't forget the D... start a discussion thread and please ping me. 162 etc. (talk) 14:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @162 etc.: The D says "Discuss your bold edit with the person who reverted you." I'm happy to discuss with you directly or on the talk page, but it's usually the person seeking to change the status quo who starts a discussion. I understand that was an unusual RM close, but there explicitly was not consensus for a primaryredirect according to the closer. These are both lightly-viewed articles, and considering the writer's article uses a different title, I don't see the writer being a primary topic for "Dimitrios Dimitriou". Now that the swimmer's article has been moved, however, I'd have less objection to a dab page, since we normally don't redirect more concise titles to less concise, and since besides Demeter we have the sailor and articles like Mitsos Dimitriou and Dimitris Dimitriou (football manager). - Station1 (talk) 05:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that we both agree that the current primary redirect is not the best solution. While I'd prefer the primary redirect to Dimitrija Demeter, I'm not opposed to a dab page, and so it seems like this would be a good compromise. 162 etc. (talk) 05:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good. Please feel free to start one. Station1 (talk) 05:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your contributions to the encyclopedia. I'm going to revert you again on this one, as your edit clearly violates MOS:LONGDAB. MOS:DABORDER does allow for a commonly sought out (but not primary) topic to be placed at the very top of the page; however that's not what you did here, and there's no evidence that T.N.T. (album) and T.N.T. (song) have such importance. 162 etc. (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm not sure how MOS:LONGDAB enters into this at all, unless you're talking about the "Example" section, which is just that. As to MOS:DABORDER, note that "Within each section, entries should be ordered to best assist the reader in finding their intended article." Aside from TNT itself, most readers are looking for the album/song, followed closely by the TV channel. It's very common, and most helpful to readers, to put the articles most readers want where they can be most easily found, near the top. That's why the album/song has been at the top of the music section ever since the very first iteration of the dab page in 2006. Station1 (talk) 05:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Polish cash-for-visa scandal on a "Wikipedia style and naming" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) on a "Wikipedia style and naming" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I found the following discussion from 2022 that stemmed from your (claimed) reversal of an edit made by another user to remove the image of state flags superimposed on a map of the U.S. I didn't see any comment from yourself on this topic and am curious as to why you reversed the edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:U.S._state Gamboler (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. That was a single edit from over a year ago, so I don't have an especially strong memory of it. But looking back through the history, I see Thrakkx made an edit with the summary "MOS:ICONDECORATION and MOS:XMASTREE" and I reverted the next day with the summary "in this case, they are not just decoration, they do serve an encyclopedic purpose". I suppose I thought the cited guidelines didn't apply to this case because the state flags are useful information in an article about U.S. states. ("Icons should serve an encyclopedic purpose and not merely be decorative. They should provide additional useful information on the article subject, ...") They don't take up much room and are visible enough on a standard laptop or desktop. I probably didn't comment on the talk page because Alanscottwalker got there first (within 6 minutes!) and basically said what I would have said, and secondarily because I didn't/don't think it's a major issue either way. Station1 (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Station1

You may have noticed that you have not received any messages from the Wikipedia:Feedback request service for over a month. Yapperbot appears to have stopped delivering messages. Until that can be resolved, please watch pages that interest you, such as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

This notification has been sent to you as you are subscribed to the Feedback Request Service. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect We Speak NYC (TV Series has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 13 § We Speak NYC (TV Series until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]