User talk:Polyamorph/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Polyamorph. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Regarding your close; you say While Lake Ellesmere appears to be the more widely used search term, evidence from reliable sources has also been presented which indicate a preference for the dual name.

You're right that at the end some evidence was provided that scholarly sources trend towards the dual name, but I think you may have missed the earlier evidence regarding news sources and book sources that the evidence regarding scholarly sources didn't rebut, both of which showed an overwhelming preference for the single name.

I would also note that if we aggregate the news and scholarly sources together a clear preference for the single name remains, but I didn't make that argument at the time so I won't go into detail on it here.

In addition, even if we do consider the evidence regarding the scholarly sources to be equal to the evidence regarding the news sources and book sources regarding the WP:COMMONNAME, then in assessing consensus we should be looking at the other arguments presented, and the support those arguments had. In that debate, additional arguments were presented for the single name, and those arguments had greater support among respondents.

I am hoping you would be willing to consider your close? BilledMammal (talk) 09:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't see consensus for the move in that discussion. There are convincing arguments eitherway. The discussion had been running for over a month (with the last comment 10 days ago) so it was time to close. Closure does not prevent further discussion and re-listing. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 09:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Regarding the specific arguments, most of those in opposition are far weaker than those in support. For example, Schwede66's was based on personal experience, EmeraldRange's was completely rebutted, and Daveosaurus' was effectively "use the official name" (the single source they referenced is the entity which determines what the official name of the location is).

Turnagra's argument was decent, with the single piece of evidence regarding the dual name's commonality, but given the lack of support it received combined with the existence of multiple pieces of evidence regarding the single name's commonality, I think there is a consensus there for a move.

However, you mention re-listing; if you aren't willing to change the result, would you at least be willing to relist the discussion, particularly since it had only been relisted once? BilledMammal (talk) 09:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

OK, I'll relist on your request as that would be more efficient than a brand new discussion. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 09:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 09:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Polyamorph,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
 — Amakuru (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

 — Amakuru (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Amakuru. Happy New Year to you too and thanks for everything you do! Polyamorph (talk) 12:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:OpticsGlass.jpg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F4 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 10:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --TheImaCow (talk) 10:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @TheImaCow: it's a derivative from other files on wikipedia/commons. File:Fibreoptic.jpg is one of the files, I'm trying to find the other files but since I made this 16 years ago I'm struggling to remember! Polyamorph (talk) 06:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@TheImaCow: found the other file File:Laser_glass_slabs.jpg - that's all files used to make the derivative work. I know on commons there is a {{Derived from}} template, is there an equivalent for wikipedia files? Polyamorph (talk) 06:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you for researching this! I've moved the file to commons, with the "Derived from" template there. (at c:File:OpticsGlass.jpg) Licencing status should be correct now. Respect for still finding the source file after so long!--TheImaCow (talk) 08:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Polyamorph. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Rue Lesage, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't necessarily have any complaints about the edits you made to the Woodcote Park article. It's just an article that I've been using frequently for a personal project and I'm wondering how you came across it. That's all Ethanshaw908 (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Epsom Riot was featured on the main page and I found Woodcote Park from that page. Having grown up in the area it peaked my interest, so I decided to spruce it up a bit :) Polyamorph (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page SN 1987A, 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) 20:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Resolved

Polyamorph (talk) 14:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Dear Polyamorph,

Using (in German) my same explanation for asking you to correct Gd b.p. to 3546 K on English Wiki was unsuccessful today on German Wiki. Perhaps the editor there thinks it is just a coincidence that the differences among the 5 handbooks is precisely the difference between centigrade and Kelvin values. Do you have access to the 2 handbooks (cited by Zhang et al. by German Wiki) that claim 3273 K to see if they are actually centigrade? Perhaps those handbooks could be in error rather than the UK authors made the mistake in their comparative analysis using data from 5 handbooks. Regards, VatievonHans 68.108.51.9 (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate you striking that bit. 28bytes (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you've actually ever held this book. The entire title is NOT just Hopi Dictionary, but includes the Hopi Title as part of the complete title of the work. It is NEVER cited in linguistic literature as just "Hopi Dictionary". See the cover at [1] and just look at the reviews cited in the Bibliography. It is NEVER cited as "Hopi Dictionary". This article should be moved back to where it was--at the correct title of the book. I could cite fifty articles in linguistics and anthropology scholarly works that cite it in full and don't make an atrocious anglocentric truncation. Move this article back to the actual title of the book. "Hopi Dictionary" is NOT its title. TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I moved it following a technical request by Dream out loud at WP:RM/TR. You can request it be moved back, as an undiscussed move, if you wish. Polyamorph (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I have submitted a request for a revert at WP:RM/TR. I'm not a fan of making a page move without starting on the Talk Page of the article. I spent a dozen years involved in the move of Kiev to Kyiv so the notion of a major page move "in the dark of night" is anathema to me. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 03:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done I performed your request. Dream out loud can submit a formal WP:RM if they still feel there is justification to move. Polyamorph (talk) 05:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Have a happy birthday, Polyamorph! Supplied by the Wikipedia Birthday Committee, have one free cake! Enjoy! Best wishes to you on your special day! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your contributions. I note that you closed this RM discussion less than 24 hours after it was started (?) Discussions should be kept open for at least 7 days. 162 etc. (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Apologies. I was looking at the wrong queue. Polyamorph (talk) 00:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I'm rather surprised by this move here, and it seems to have been made on not a huge turnout. Surely the 1967 invasion during the six day was is by far the most significant Israeli invasion of the Gaza strip, prior to that it was Egyptian territory, and many events that followed have sprung from that. The current war is sought after now, but looking at longterm significance I don't think it's a clear primary and I think the prior disambiguation page was the right situation. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 00:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Amakuru OK, please revert and relist. Polyamorph (talk) 00:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Amakuru can you fix the fact that the page no longer has the move notice and is no longer listed at WP:RM? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 07:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@Vice regent: ooh apologies for that, not sure how I managed to mess it up. Should be fixed now. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 07:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I see the page listed at RM and assume the notice should be put by a bot shortly.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 08:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if the bot was confused or what, but I added these notices back manually. Polyamorph (talk) 09:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The bot will add them.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for closing Talk:Doctor_of_Philosophy#Requested_move_24_May_2024. However, can I ask you to please reconsider the close? You mention consistency, but that is just one of the five WP:CRITERIA and in any case it was shown the abbreviation is also used in other articles, such as PhD-MBA. You also say PhD is not a universal abbreviation, but surely it is more universal than the full name, which is not very commonly used at all. Vpab15 (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

No, I read your many comments in the discussion and the consensus is not in your favour. Polyamorph (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi…why did you relist this move? It seems both uncontroversial (probably I should have just done the move instead of carefully posting about it on the talk page, waiting 3 weeks, and then formally proposing a move), and then it was relisted once to notify a few wikiprojects last week, why relist it again? I am confused, but I don't do a lot of moves so maybe I'm missing something basic. jhawkinson (talk) 14:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jhawkinson I relisted it simply to give it more time for other users to comment. On reflection, I will move it as an uncontested and uncontroversial move. I agree you probably could have just moved the page, or for uncontroversial moves you can't perform yourself you can also request at WP:RM/TR to avoid the (often) lengthy discussion period. Best wishes Polyamorph (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. But I'm still confused, I didn't think "more time" was a valid reason to relist a second time, which is disfavored? (And is "more time" a good reason to relist the first time?) By "more time" I mean waiting for a discussion to start — that's distinguishable from a robust and active discussion that is ongoing and doesn't yet seem to have reached its conclusion, or which is evenly divided, but this is not that. Sorry to be asking dumb questions about the process, but I would like to better understand how this [is supposed to] work. jhawkinson (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

It's common for WP:RMs to be relisted multiple times, despite the ideal described at WP:RMRELIST. The whole point of WP:RM is a discussion takes place to decide on consensus, if no discussion has taken place then it is not possible to judge that consensus. But I agree in this case that the move is uncontroversial and since it is uncontested I have now closed the discussion as moved. Polyamorph (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a Move review of Doctor of Philosophy. 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. Vpab15 (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@Polyamorph You recently closed the move request for Talk:Three-dimensional electrical capacitance tomography to revert to the original title of Electrical Capacitance Volume Tomography with the decision to not move. I originally proposed the move, and I would like to express that there was not yet a consensus on the discussion.

The discussion was originally between myself and one opposing editor who originally changed the title of the article without discussion. The opposition posted twice and then did not answer my final post. The discussion remained dormant for almost three weeks before another user @Toadspike weighed in and sided with the opposition. However, you closed the discussion the same day, and I did not get a chance to formerly respond to the new participant. I have since started a discussion with him on his talk page if you would like to review it there as well.

I would therefore request you to re-open the discussion so that the discussion can take place in the correct talk page. Marashdeh (talk) 12:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus to move, you have spoken to Toadspike and after considering your comments they do not wish to change their mind. I do not see that a consensus to move will develop if the discussion is reopened. Polyamorph (talk) 12:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I suppose I am confused. There was never any discussion to move the title in the first place. It was originally ECVT and was changed to 3D ECT without consensus. There was never even a discussion. Should it not be returned to the original title until a consensus is reached? Marashdeh (talk) 13:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

The problem with that is there has been a discussion now and the consensus is to keep it where it is, even if participation was limited. Polyamorph (talk) 13:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Marashdeh I've decided to re-open the discussion and inform some relevant wikiprojects to try and get some more participation in the discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Numbers articles by priority indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 13:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I subsequently re-requested it be deleted since I'm using Category:Numbers articles by importance instead. Polyamorph (talk) 12:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I have seen that you operated WP 1.0 bot working on the WP:NUM assessment. How did you do that? In that case as well, would you like to help me in the case of WP:3TOPE as well? Many thanks. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Dedhert.Jr The way to do this is to create the categories Category:Polyhedra articles by quality and the associated sub categories for FA, GA, A, B, C, Start, Stub etc. Similarly for importance (optionally). Then populate those categories using the project talk page banner. The categories should be placed in the Category:Wikipedia_1.0_assessments index and the bot will do its thing. I'll have a look at WP:3TOPE for you. Polyamorph (talk) 12:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Ahh... many thanks. Some off topics that I have to include here. I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers/Recognized content, but it seems there are some incompleted lists. Perhaps this can be discussed in WikiProject. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 13:10, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

No problem. It looks like you did most of the work already, it was just the Category:Wikipedia_1.0_assessments missing from the Category:Polyhedra articles by quality and Category:Polyhedra articles by importance. The bot should index the articles within 24 hours or so, when it does Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Polyhedra_articles_by_quality_log and User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Polyhedra should turn blue. Re: the Recognized content page, that's very nice. Probably best to raise it at the wikiproject discussion, there are various bots and templates that can automatically populate these lists. Polyamorph (talk) 13:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I am puzzled why you seem to think that the deleted sentence: "The modern digit '1' did not become widespread until the mid-1950s." is obviously true. What am I missing? The "modern digit" seems to refer to a character with a vertical line, a top serif to the left, and a baseline serif to both sides. (Am I wrong?) But this just seems to be the normal form for the digit '1', um forever, almost. I'm looking at a page of sample typefaces (p. 408, "Books and Printing" Paul A Bennett) showing Baskerville, Bell, Bembo, and Bodoni book ar all extant decades before 1950. The claim struck me as very strange indeed. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Sans serif fonts, such as Helvetica, were popularised in the 1950s, resulting in the simple standardised form of 1 that we see now. Polyamorph (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I just checked, the fonts you mention, all have serifs at the bottom, the last two (Bembo and Bodoni) are similar to the Roman numeral. These are missing in (modern) sans serif fonts. Polyamorph (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day! Hi Polyamorph! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks The Herald. Polyamorph (talk) 09:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Dedhert.Jr -- Dedhert.Jr (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Polyamorph (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I have made some comments. Happy improving. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 13:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Dedhert.Jr: Doing... Many thanks. Polyamorph (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Dedhert.Jr: Done Best wishes Polyamorph (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

The article 1 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1 for comments about the article, and Talk:1/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Dedhert.Jr -- Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:25, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Yay! :) Thanks Dedhert.Jr Polyamorph (talk) 15:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)