User talk:Asukite
New pages patrol September 2024 Backlog drive
[edit]Not displeased with the outcome, but you may have jumped the gun closing this discussion only 2 days in. 162 etc. (talk) 01:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Oh boy. The malformed requests section being at the end of the backlog of the list seems to have confused me, now I have a mess to clean up. I should re-open that. ASUKITE 03:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, @162 etc., thanks for informing me. I have reverted everything and left a comment. Think I'll take a break from working page moves for a couple days and work on something else. ASUKITE 03:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with First combat operations of FASH
[edit]Hey there! I really had a lapse in the process of renaming, and I thank you very much for noticing my mistakes there, and fixing it! That really made my day :) Regards, OnlyNanotalk 15:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- No problem! Your solution was the correct one in most cases, but there were some SPI concerns in the history I was hoping to preserve for the future. I'm not sure if I even requested the histmerge correctly, but we shall see once an admin gets to it. ASUKITE 16:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- There we go, we can both be testing our skills with this move. OnlyNanotalk 16:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Pageview
[edit]Many thanks for opining on Talk:N-Gage with the valid pageview analysis argument. I therefore have another move request at Talk:Lego Racers (video game) for which I believe the same argument applies, your opinion would be welcome if you agree or if not. Sceeegt (talk) 14:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Why did you move it, given that it was listed in the "contested" section already? I think that's not a proper name, given how mixed sources are, and the lack of sourcing in the article. Dicklyon (talk) 00:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
It looks like if it has a proper name, it's the much more common Tanda Thermal Power Station. Dicklyon (talk) 00:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Dicklyon Sorry, I didn't see any harm in making it uppercase, seemed like it was consistent with others, and I was probably too confident a merge wasn't going to happen. ASUKITE 02:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 26 September 2024
[edit]- In the media: Courts order Wikipedia to give up names of editors, legal strain anticipated from "online safety laws"
- Community view: Indian courts order Wikipedia to take down name of crime victim, editors strive towards consensus
- Serendipity: A Wikipedian at the 2024 Paralympics
- Opinion: asilvering's RfA debriefing
- News and notes: Are you ready for admin elections?
- Recent research: Article-writing AI is less "prone to reasoning errors (or hallucinations)" than human Wikipedia editors
- Traffic report: Jump in the line, rock your body in time
Richmond branch
[edit]The better disambiguation might be Richmond branch (Pennsylvania Railroad) and Richmond branch (Reading Company). Mackensen (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! I didn't see any harm in fixing redlinks and although I checked them after I could have looked closer. I will check again later to make sure I have them all right. ASUKITE 20:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- If it's somewhere in the vicinity of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, it's Richmond branch (Reading Company). If it's in Ohio or Indiana it's probably Richmond branch (Pennsylvania Railroad). Entirely possible there are others floating around. Mackensen (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
AIM-174 Pre-Move Review Discussion
[edit]Howdy,
Thank you for your review of the AIM-174B move request and I apologize for bothering you yet again. As per WP:RM I am initiating this talk page discussion prior to initiating a move review request. Your closing reason would seem to support my original request (a move to AIM-174). We needn't have any discussion regarding variants in the future if the page is not named after a specific variant. Per WP:CONSISTENT, no other missile page is named after a particular variant. The AIM-54A and B variants were phased-out; Should the article be named "AIM-54C?" That's my line of thinking, anyways. Per WP:CRYSTALBALL, we should not be assuming that the "B" variant is the only operational variant (indeed, we do have confirmation of the XAIM-174B, CATM-174B, and DATM-174B, of which the AIM-174B is a derivative of — at least of the XAIM-174B) especially when it comes to a 'special access program.' The 'B' is also an uneeded WP:DISAMBIG. In-response to the opposing viewpoints: "AIM-174" is freely-used among sources[1][2][3] and in response to the idea that "assuming there are other variants is WP:CRYSTALBALL" — using "AIM-174" is not inherently assuming there are other variants. It is the name of a missile. We just so happen to only be aware of a single operational variant. I would argue that — as I said previously — specifying "B" in the title is actually the crystal ball violation, adding an unnecessary disambiguation to a known practice of how missiles are named. Additionally, WP:CONCISE should be considered, and WP:PRECISE is not violated with "AIM-174" as it is the name of the missile and it does not disrupt locating the article. Also, I would like it to be noted and taken-into consideration that the page was moved to "AIM-174B" without discussion. It was not a technical move, and a discussion should have been opened per WP:MOVE. If anything, the page should be reverted to the original name, minus "air-to-air missile" per CONCISE. I think that about covers it, thanks again!! MWFwiki (talk) 20:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- @MWFwikiThanks for the thorough explanation, I think that might warrant re-opening the discussion with this info you sent me, to enable the participants to consider this (especially the part about the undiscussed move, which I was not aware of and probably would/will have a measurable impact on the outcome of the RM)
- Sorry if I caused any disruption, I will go ahead and reverse my close shortly. ASUKITE 20:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Cheers, appreciated :) MWFwiki (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Administrator Elections: Call for Candidates
[edit]Administrator Elections | Call for Candidates
The administrator elections process has officially started! Interested editors are encouraged to self-nominate or arrange to be nominated by reviewing the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Call for candidates.
Here is the schedule:
- October 8–14 - Candidate sign-up (we are here)
- October 22–24 - Discussion phase
- October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
Please note the following:
- The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed.
- Prospective candidates are advised to become familar with the community's expectations of adminstrators, which are much higher than the minimum requirement of having extended confirmed status. This includes reviewing successful and unsuccessful RFAs, reading the essay Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, and possibly requesting an optional poll on their chances of passing.
- The process will have a one week call for candidates phase, a one week pause to set up SecurePoll, a three-day period of public discussion, followed by 7 days of no public discussion and a private vote using SecurePoll.
- The outcomes of this process are identical to making requests for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA or administrator elections.
- Administrator elections are also a valid means of regaining adminship for de-sysopped editors.
Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. A separate user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.
To avoid sending too many messages, this will be the last mass message sent about administrator elections. If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)