Hi, I've made an edir request for splitting the "Battle of Jabalia" page, and you referenced me to WP:SPLIT.
As I'm not extended-protected user I can't start a discussion in the talk page about splitting the page. Could you please help me with that?
Thanks Guy Haddad 1 (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Guy Haddad 1! I can indeed give you some assistance. You are right, the Battle of Jabalia’s talk page states that non extended-confirmed users cannot discuss the topic besides making edit requests. I apologize for not having notified you of that on my answer to your edit request. Now the main issue with a split is due to the lack of reliable sources on the Battle of Jabalia article. The sources in the article generally fail to establish the battle’s verifiability, let alone a second battle. In the event that you find enough WP:SIGCOV sources for the Second Battle of Jabalia, I’d suggest following the instructions here in order to proceed with your proposed article, which you can create a draft for. Feel free to ask any further questions or concerns here. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 13:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yovt, draft pages are not exempt from WP:ARBECR / WP:A/I/PIA and Guy Haddad 1's draft was deleted for this reason. There is an exception for "userspace" well-hidden at WP:A/I/PIA's fourth point. This exception does not apply to any other topic area with such a restriction, so normally even userspace pages are restricted. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello ToBeFree, thank you for notifying me of this situation. I understand now what I have done and take full responsibility. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 13:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of David Cross in Alvin and the Chipmunks 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.
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Mid90s, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Hi there - I have no general objection to your edits to the Moneyball (film) synopsis, but I'm confused by your statement that the synopsis was well over 700 words. I just double-checked the word count on wordcounter.net and it gives me 697 words. Is there some other counter you've been using? Cheers.
Hello Nameless, I believe what happened here was that I was pasting the text into a google document when I was trimming the plot, and what likely happened was that I pasted the source code rather than the prose. I understand your concern and I encourage you to fix whatever I broke, thank you for reaching out. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 15:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain how you saw a consensus to not move there? It's numerically 3:3, which would default to no consensus and I don't see any particular basis to give the opposing arguments more weight. * Pppery *it has begun...20:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Pppery, thanks for reaching out. As you know, consensus on Wikipedia isn't determined by a simple vote count but by the strength of arguments. In this case, the opposes provided convincing rationale. "Carousel (film)" serves as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as the page views for the 1956 film way exceed those of other films with the same name. Also, disambiguation conventions allow for partial disambiguation when the topic is highly dominant, which was well supported here. Although adding the year would offer clarity, this argument was subjective, not strongly address consistency. The statement as to disambiguate with "film" implies it's the only film called Carousel was also not compelling to override established primary topic. More input is welcome. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 22:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Mid90s, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Mid90s, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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.
Hey there, I really like that you linked the diff of the discussion in your request at WP:RM/TR. Next time, though, it'd be even better if you linked the diff of the discussion right after the close, instead of right before. (Putting this here since I've already removed the relevant entry at RM/TR.) Toadspike[Talk]18:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved content from Alvin and the Chipmunks into The Chipmunk Song (Christmas Don't Be Late). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content (here or elsewhere), Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 12:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Kline • talk • contribs02:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge templates should be on article pages
Just a quick note to let you know that merge templates should be on article pages, and not on talk pages. I noted that you edited the talk page on Talk:History of Fox News. However, the template was correctly on the article, and shouldn't be on the talk page too (this makes maintainance lists unduly complicated); nowiki was there deliberately to stop the template working. So, templates on the article, discussion on the talk page; see WP:MERGEPROP Step 2. Klbrain (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 42 (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wendell Smith. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Lyla in the Loop, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 42 (film), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Copyright means that one has to examine copyright at every level when dealing with creative works, not just who was the person who took a particular photograph. In this case, the Lego Movie film set is technically a sculpture, a creative work to which copyright automatically attaches by operation of law. The set was likely built as a work for hire for the production company that made the film, and then the right to depict it was licensed by that company to Warner Bros.
I deliberately uploaded my photo of the film set to the English Wikipedia under a fair use rationale and not Commons because I am not a Warner Bros. Entertainment employee. I do not have the power to license the right to depict the film set to the Wikimedia Foundation. It's obvious that the person who took that photo on Commons didn't have that power either, so that latter photo is going to have to be deleted. In the meantime, I've reverted your edit to The Lego Movie article. Coolcaesar (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This image is under a creative commons license, one verified in May 2019.
Hello @Coolcaesar, thanks for bringing this up. The photo you speak of that you restored, File:Thelegomovieset.jpg, is indeed under a not free license and is thus required to have a lesser resolution. On the other hand, the clearer image I added (set to |thumb here) would be of more encyclopedic value. If you claim the image does not have the appropriate license, I suggest bringing this up to Commons along with the other images File:The Lego Movie movie set at legoland ca DSC 8563 (14501619997).jpg, File:The Lego Movie movie set at legoland ca DSC 8587 (14684885111).jpg, and File:The Lego Movie movie set at legoland ca DSC 8562 (14707951843).jpg to see if you can get consensus to delete those. If you cannot do so, I will restore the file I added previously. Thanks, 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 22:13, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again you've closed a discussion as "not moved" in favor of partial disambiguation when there wasn't a consensus for that. This discussion has very similar numbers and arguments to Talk:Carousel (film) which was overturned to no consensus at move review, so "not moved" seems like it's really reaching. * Pppery *it has begun...01:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pppery, with all due respect, you did not even participate in the Elephant Man RM you mention. Neither of the participants there have reached out to me regarding the closure. Additionally, This discussion has very similar numbers and arguments to Talk:Carousel (film) seems like the reaching statement here. If I were you I would consider asking the participants of the Elephant RM if the closure was appropriate. I can give my own 2 cents as well, but I would rather inquire with the actual participants of the article renaming discussion in question. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 17:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not required to have participated in a discussion to challenge its closure. In this case I apparently missed the discussion until the page was added to WP:Partially disambiguated page names, which is on my watchlist - if I had participated I would have opposed. And dismissing my statement as reaching without more substance feels wrong. Contrary to your claim, uninvolved users are actually better at assessing consensus than involved ones, which is why closers have to be uninvolved. * Pppery *it has begun...18:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
uninvolved users are actually better at assessing consensus than involved ones Agree, that's why I closed the discussion.
If substance if what you're asking for then here it goes:
The nominator Tbhotch only cited the WP:NCF guideline
The sole supporter Erik noted ... unless there is preference to make the Lynch film the primary topic.
The supporting parties overall claim that there is preference to make the Lynch film the primary topic (thus Tbhotch's stance could have changed, maybe ask) due to contrasting statistical (pageviews) and broader-guideline (that being WP:INCDAB) perspectives. INCDAB states: In individual cases consensus may determine that a parenthetically disambiguated title that is still ambiguous has a primary topic...
Overall, this discussion was rightfully closed as Not Moved because it just wasn't moved. If you still believe this wasn't a warranted closure, I would't recommend taking this to WP:MR without first discussing it with the RM participators, but that's really splitting hairs. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 17:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per the editorial discretion you gave, I merged Italian Ethiopia/Italian occupation of Ethiopia to Italian East Africa with a bold move; the two articles covered the same and the 1st was contained in (and derived from) the 2nd with copied content. Initially I did not realize it and very much misread your comment; I was changing it to "Ethiopia in Italian East Africa" for MoS:clarity to do the various administrative and infobox corrections noted by users in the talk page. I fixed this by abandoning the changes I was making and redirecting it to Italian East Africa. So basically I created an intermediate redirect page that was not needed, just to inform you. Barjimoa (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
