User talk:Amakuru

Recent RM discussion close: Syrian revolution

Hello Amakuru, I noticed that you recently closed the [move discussion] for moving Syrian revolution to Syrian Revolution. You closed the decision as not moved because you believe that reliable sources do not consistently capitalize the phrase. However, this is where WP:NCCAPS comes into play. Evaluating consensus can be difficult when multiple policies intersect. In addition, the capitalized form Syrian Revolution is becoming increasingly common in reliable sources, and the argument for capitalization is strong. The vote was 12 to 5; although Wikipedia is not a vote, if the strength of the arguments is comparable then we should probably relist; Mast303 (talk) 00:37, 28 March 2025 (UTC) PS: You did not even close it as "no consensus";

@Mast303: thanks for your message. I'm aware that there were quite a few editors in support of the move at the article you mention, which is why I took care to write a detailed summary giving the reasons for the close. Hopefully you've read that and can understand from a policy point of view where this is coming from. Put simply, there was very little in the "support" comments that aligned with our well-established policies and guidelines in this area; in particular the majority of comments which were either along the lines of "this is a proper name" without any further reasons as to why, or "sources commonly capitalise it" which did not address the fact that the guidance requires the uncapitalized form to be much less common than the capitalized form, something which was shown in the discussion to not be the case (generally the two forms run neck-and-neck). You mention that "this is where WP:NCCAPS comes into play", but NCCAPS clearly favours the current name, based on the evidence presented. "one should leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper name that would always occur capitalized, even mid-sentence" is the guideline. Also, you say "multiple policies intersect" but I'm not really sure what you mean by this; I don't know of any policies which favour the proposed title-case name, and the supporters did not AFAIK raise any such alternative policies. On your final point, you mention the numeric totals and strengths of arguments, but for the reasons given here and in my close statement, the strengths of arguments were not at all equal, hence why I found that as a Wikipedia consensus, there was consensus against the move and not even no consensus. I hope that makes some sense. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree with that closing a 12-5 vote in favor of the 5 votes is highly irregular and at odds with Wikipedia's definition of consensus. I would recommend you reread WP:NCCAPS and WP:NPOV when closing discussions and next time close a discussion according to the consensus reached. Since there was clearly a consensus in favor of Syrian Revolution, if we cannot resolve the matter here we must follow the process according to WP:Move review. --Plumber (talk) 00:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I think that there was a (weak) consensus in favor of the capitalized form Syrian Revolution. I may open a move review. Mast303 (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Again, the only way you could interpret it as there being a consensus to move is if you think that consensus is formed by voting rather than strength of arguments. WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS are crystal clear that only terms capitalised in a substantial majority of sources or "would always occur capitalised even mid-sentence" are capitalised, that has been the sitewide guideline for many many years. The ngrams presented in the discussion demonstrate without any doubt that the bar isn't met. The two titles are neck-and-neck, no substantial majority in sight. It's rare to get a case where the majority of commenters make an argument that can be unambiguously refuted, but this is one of them. You're welcome to take the matter to move review of course, and perhaps if sympathetic people who like to count heads rather than study the evidence attend the move review you might even be successful in getting it listed as "no consensus" instead of "consensus against", but either way I don't see any way the page will be moved at this time.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Use Tanzanian English

Template:Use Tanzanian English has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:33, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

April

story · music · places

Thank you for page moves to better titles, - what do you think about Enrique Matiz - see talk. Also: I have an article in prep 4 with a hook that I believe is poor, for one of the greatest opera singers of the 20th century. What do you think? It was forced into prep while I travelled over the weekend. I talked to the promoter, to no avail, and have found talking to the reviewer simply impossible (see nom), - we don't speak the same language. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: happy new month to you! I've moved the article to Enrique Bátiz per the discussion, that seems fairly clear cut per my comment there. Regarding the DYK nom, I've tried to take a dispassionate look at it given that I'd consider you a friend and you're always kind to me, but also trying to be objective. In any case, I'm a little puzzled by what's happened - while I can agree that the originally-proposed hook most likely wouldn't be interesting to a broad audience, I do think ALT2c would have been a good compromise hook. To me it satisfies those who think opera roles are boring with the nod to the "wet nurse" story, while also extending the Pavarotti link to the more substantive connection that they appeared together in the opera. Given that ALT2c was twice signed off by a reviewer who also praised it as a compromise, I'm not sure why it was then unilaterally vetoed by someone else.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for looking. I still believe that the original hook, modified by 4meter4, was better because - opera or not - it speaks of a woman who portrayed the same role believably for four decades, even on the biggest stage (which even people not knowing much about opera may know). She is an achiever. In the current hook, she is an unqualified "opera singer", and passive to some coincidence. I think we - Wikipedia - should better portray women as active. - The veto came because it's not in the article, - I was travelling! When I arrived home, it was already in prep. The veto also came because N. doesn't understand that characters such as Carmen and Mimi can raise curiosity, and carry a lot of information, so precision, + good stories. "Opera singer" is just horribly unspecific, and then for a prima donna (which to say would be too unspecific for my taste). No DYK is better than that one. But how to bring that across? Today is the birthday of Fausta Labia who had a DYK to my liking in 2022. I guess I make her my story and leave the RD for tomorrow ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I added the fact to the article and requested on dyktalk to replace the hook or better bring it pictured in a later set. (I have a different story on 8 April in mind, also have a hook in prep 3 which seems too close for similar topics.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:28, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth, in the end I was becoming more open to ALT2c, the main issue why I rejected it was because the issue had not been addressed yet. It's now addressed, so ALT2c is technically okay now. However, I still think that ALT2c is not the best wording possible; I responded on WT:DYK on feedback on how the wording could be improved. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Move review for Syrian revolution

An editor has asked for a Move review of Syrian revolution. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review.