User talk:Turnagra

Hello turnagra. I have simplified Pedro Piquero's article, replacing it, under your suggestions, with reliable sources and eliminating external links to wikipedia. I would like to know your opinion to help me. Thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.73.34.202 (talk) 11:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your move of Fox Glacier, New Zealand, becuase it was contrary to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand) and there was no discussion. If you believe this article should be an exception to the convention, please open a discussion on the talk page.-gadfium 01:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi gadfium (talk · contribs) - apologies for moving it without discussion. I'm trying to see how it runs contrary to the naming conventions, particularly number 5? Unless it's relating to the use of 'township' instead of 'town'? Turnagra (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The New Zealand Barnstar of National Merit
		Taiari / Chalky Inlet is an excellent piece of work by you. Thank you. Delightful to see such a well-developed article. With a longer lead, I'd upgrade it to B class.
		this WikiAward was given to Turnagra by Schwede66 on 19:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll go back and try to expand on the lead in the next couple of weeks sometime! Turnagra (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to How Great Thou Art has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Do not add copyrighted lyrics to articles about songs. This is unhelpful, not only because of copyright, but also because Wikipedia is not a lyrics database. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RandomCanadian: is there a reason why the entire edit was reverted and not just a subsequent edit to remove the lyrics? I'm also curious as to how the use of the lyrics in that instance to demonstrate its link to another hymn differs in use to the numerous other uses of lyrics in that article, especially since many of them are newer than the lyrics to Whakaaria Mai? I'd be keen to go back and add the section on Whakaaria Mai even without the lyrics if need be since the edit was much broader than that, but want to get a bit more context first to make sure I'm not missing something. Turnagra (talk) 02:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If there are more recent lyrics, and these are also under copyright, they also need to be removed. As for the presence of translations, that's a given for most major hymns. Unless this version is particularly significant and stands out amongst the translations for some reason, a short mention, such as "The song has been translated into other languages, including [...]" would be the logical way to give an encyclopedic summary of the topic (as opposed to giving too much detail). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think my point with the lyrics was that they're from a different hymn than How Great Thou Art, so it's more of a combination, but happy to do that via text instead of a lyrical comparison. As far as the significance of it, Whakaaria Mai is definitely significant as a version of the song and is probably the most famous hymn in New Zealand - in my view, absolutely worthy of a couple paragraphs at least. Turnagra (talk) 02:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I notice that you were the last person prior to myself to make an edit to the Christchurch suburb of Wigram. I have put a lot of effort over the last several weeks making it as complete as I can and I would really appreciate your input into the article, any edits/reviews etc, or if you could advise me of anything which you think should be changed? I would love to get my edits reviewed by someone like yourself who is also familair with the area.

Thanks for all your contributions to Wikipedia!

StraightTalkNZ (talk) 13:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@StraightTalkNZ: Hi, welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for your work on the article! I see that User:Schwede66 has already made a few changes and given you some feedback, so that's probably a good place to start. I think the key thing is trying to reword a lot of the content into text similar to other articles, instead of bulleted lists or incomplete sentences. I also think it's worth taking another check to see whether all of the categories are strictly necessary, or whether some of them could be combined. For instance, the article for Addington has a single "facilities" section - a similar section for Wigram could reasonably have paragraphs that cover the "National Institutions", "Parks, sport and recreation", "Elderly Housing and care" and potentially Education sections. This would make the article much easier to read. I also feel like the Governance section could be included within the infobox, and so I'm not sure if it's worth having a separate section on that.

At any rate, hopefully that's enough to get started on - happy to provide more feedback or be a sounding board for thoughts etc if that would be helpful! Turnagra (talk) 05:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the above comments would be better posted on the Wigram talk page, as other editors interested in the topic would also benefit from your good thoughts. You can always leave a note here that you've moved (or copied) your response to there. Schwede66 08:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Turnagra thanks for the tips, I merged those three under Landmarks and features as per the Saint Heliers article as I think that several items genuinely fit into regional landmarks e.g. Nga Puna Wai and the Museum rather than just "Features". I also rewrote some of those sections to try to make it more text instead of just bulleted lists/incomplete sentences like you reccomended. Hopefully it makes reads a bit better and thanks for your advice!

StraightTalkNZ (talk) 12:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Glaciers of New Zealand, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages William Fox and Forbes Glacier. 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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just some rambling thoughts to help explain myself on more meta topics. One of my little pet problems is AfD's where because the default is Keep, editors who want that have no insensitive to engage past posting a vote. That does not mean I am accusing anyone of anything. It is more that when the system incentivizes disengagement it does not aid discussion. No, I don't have a better system in mind. On another point we have put so much ink into this RfD and I don't feel closer to understanding your point of view. Part of that is my own unwillingness to read and understand everything (I have been a bit slack, sorry), but also I feel the way threads work is floored. I would prefer I think lots of subheadings to keep us on narrow subtopics. For example in the Taranaki talk, I may have been guilty of moving the goalposts which happens often when you have so many points and feel you have to get them all out at once. As for my main problem of too few editors knowing the rules we make, I am musing on the idea of a NZ template on talk pages that links any specific NZ rule and spelling pages, like a FAQ but less aggressive. Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kia ora @Dushan Jugum:, cheers for reaching out. I totally agree with what you said on the dual name discussions, I think they very quickly get out of hand and become unwieldy - I feel sorry for anyone new trying to wade in now! I think what might help when it comes to the understanding of points of view is to separate the discussion from the specific guidelines and talk about the actual reasons behind the points of view - for instance, are you just opposed to dual names because they don't align with wider wikipedia policies or is there some other reason you're not a fan of dual place names behind used? I think a bit of kōrero around that first, which doesn't even touch on the specific guidelines, would be far more helpful in terms of understanding where people are coming from and then being able to come to a clearer picture on how we can move forward. Turnagra (talk) 05:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re Circumpolar peoples. Firstly I assure you we just follow the same pages and I am not following you. Secondly I wanted more subheadings and now I have four? different sub-threads on fundamentally the same question across two pages, be careful what you wish for. Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not that you need any validation from me, but I thought the vote would have gone the other way. If I was on the "other-side" I would have definitively seen it as an example of an administrator counting the votes. Then hours later I was unimpressed when I saw a few pages moved in my watch list, then gobsmacked when I found out how many others had been. Anyway just wanted to say that your comment that neutrality propagates the injustices of the majority was not lost on me. It is late, slavery has started to be mentioned, take some consolidation that what ever happens next I have to tell myself that it is what I wanted. Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Turnagra,

You have participated in a previous vote. There is a blanket move discussion initated by User:Spekkios to revert your vote on other pages which is here: Talk:Fox_Glacier_/_Te_Moeka_o_Tuawe#Requested_move_2_November_2021 in case you are not aware of it yet. Gryffindor (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gryffindor: thanks for that - hadn't got around to that one yet but have been well involved in the other move requests. Be sure to also check out the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (New Zealand) page for an ongoing discussion around the much wider page moves that have happened and an attempt at forming a process going forward. Turnagra (talk) 18:08, 9 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) 00:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Turnagra! I can work on other maps of NZ. May be you can make a list of what is needed and give me the frames of these maps (in N,S, E, W coordinates). I will generate them. If you wish to work on them too I can generate the drafts and you can finish them. The maps are svg and I use Inkscape to finalise them. As a start I thought that I can create a detailed geographical map of New Zealand similar to this, this or this. --Ikonact (talk) 13:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ikonact! For maps like that, if you'd like to do one of New Zealand at a whole we could probably find a use for it, but it might be more useful to do one for each of the two main islands separately for their respective articles. I also think having some for some of the offshore island groups (such as the Manawatāwhi / Three Kings Islands, Campbell Islands and Mercury Islands) could be useful, in the same way that we already have ones for Stewart Island / Rakiura and the Chatham Islands (though I note that both of these ideally need to be updated with dual names where relevant).

The other main maps I've been thinking of at this stage have been one of the Marlborough Sounds (N,S,E,W borders probably 40°35' 41°35' 174°30' 173°25') and Banks Peninsula (N,S,E,W borders probably 43°32' 43°56' 173°10' 172°30') - these two would probably benefit from having location maps, so I'm not sure whether you'd prefer to just do the blank location map or do a detailed one too - up to you! Turnagra (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will start with the location maps. I made a try with Marlborough Sounds. If OK I can make Banks Peninsula. I will do the islands after that. Let me know --Ikonact (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made also the map of the Banks Peninsula.--Ikonact (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think those both look great, thank you Ikonact! Do you mind if I go ahead and set them up as location maps now? Look forward to seeing how the detailed ones turn out, too! Turnagra (talk) 06:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good that these fit your expectations. Just a little clarification: when you say "detailed ones" do you mean for these location maps or the island groups maps? I do not think that we need more details on these location maps but if you wish so, I can make them. I will focus on the islands now. This may take a bit more time. --Ikonact (talk) 08:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I meant the island maps. There would definitely be cases where we could use labelled / detailed versions of the location maps, but I don't think that's a priority at the moment. Turnagra (talk) 09:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Turnagra, here is the first map I made of Three Kings Islands--Ikonact (talk) 22:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I like this, thank you! Is there any way to get the bathymetric data, or nothing high-res enough to use? Turnagra (talk) 08:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tried with the ETOPO1 data but the resolution is too low to work well for such small maps. I can give a second try and optimise. May be bathymetry data from LINZ can work too but I have to dig a bit deeper on their site to find the correct data. If you have any idea for better data I will take it. --Ikonact (talk) 10:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found Depth contour polyline on LINZ site. I can try it and let you know. --Ikonact (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added bathymetry --Ikonact (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's come out well, thank you! Out of curiosity, how did you convert the depth contour lines into what you have on your image? That was where I ran into issues in my map, as I couldn't figure out how to properly change it over. Turnagra (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you use as tool for your maps? I use some scripts that I made to turn shape files into svg. I extract the contours for a given level from the shapefile and then apply the same logic as for costliness. --Ikonact (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was just trying to use QGIS, with varying levels of success... Turnagra (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that with QGIS it is not obvious. You can filter using the "valdco" filed. But the bathymetry data from LINZ is a bit tricky. No polygones but lines so it is difficult to fill with colour. I am working on the Campbell island now and the contours around are not ideal. The same was around Three Kings Islands. There were holes and some strange perfect circles of 20m in between 30 and 50m areas. --Ikonact (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm following this with interest. Great work! Would it be possible to produce a map that shows the Heaphy Track, with the track itself shown on it? The current issue with the track is that three bridges have just been washed away, including a suspension bridge of 147 m length! Would be nice to show on a map where that happened. Schwede66 21:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Schwede66! That may be possible but I will be grateful if you are have an example of what you want. A topo map with the track? --Ikonact (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ikonact, I actually quite like the relief maps that you've been producing. Schwede66 21:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, is it still the correct process that if I want to use one of your maps as a location map (e.g. in an infobox), I'd have to define it in Module:Location map? Given that you work a lot with maps, you'd probably more up to date with the happenings than I am. Schwede66 22:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I created a map data in Commons for Heaphy Track. This can be imported in the article. I will work on a topo map later on. Regarding the location maps, I think Turnagra is better placed than me to explain. --Ikonact (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ikonact, awesome work. Love it! The map shows two tracks, though. The Heaphy Track (the long one) and a shorter side-track, the Shakespeare Flat Track. See the clip. Could you keep the latter separate, please? How should these maps be categorised? I had not come across this type of data before. Schwede66 00:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66: the maps should all be already loaded as location maps (see for Fiordland, Banks Peninsula, and Marlborough Sounds) so all you'd need to do is specify them on the relevant infobox. I've done this for the first two already on some articles (eg. Taiari / Chalky Inlet for Fiordland and Ōtamahua / Quail Island for Banks Peninsula) but haven't got to the Marlborough Sounds yet. Turnagra (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see that it does things the way it should be in other infoboxes, but Infobox settlement seems to be set up differently. Going by the documentation, it seems that you do need to set it up via Module:Location map for coordinates to be shown as a pin. See Takapūneke for an example. Schwede66 23:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66: Weird, I have no idea why that one is working differently to the others. How did you manage to get it working, so that I can do it for the other two maps? Turnagra (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I does work once a map is set up via Module:Location map (which you've done; or was it Ikonact?) and by using it via the parameter pushpin_map Schwede66 00:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made the Campbell Island map too --Ikonact (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, love your work! I'll set to updating that article with it. Turnagra (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+ Map of Auckland Islands --Ikonact (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great as usual! I'm not sure what's still on your list, but just in case you were planning to do the Antipodes Islands it seems there's already a map of the same style for them so probably don't need to bother there. Turnagra (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made a list here of those islands that have a map already. I will start with the Snares Islands now --Ikonact (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+ Map of Snares Islands--Ikonact (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+ Map of Bounty Islands --Ikonact (talk) 09:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These both look great, thanks! Turnagra (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Turnagra! I reduced my activities on Wikipedia those last weeks and therefore did not finish with the NZ islands maps. I see from my list that I still need to make the map of the Kermadec Islands. Could you please let me know if there is any other map that you would like to have? Thanks --Ikonact (talk) 10:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All good, hope everything's okay! The only other island group which could potentially benefit from a map would be maybe the Mercury Islands, since the current one has great detail of the bathymetry but nothing on the surface. If possible, I've wondered whether maps for the North and South Islands could be worthwhile as well, though I know that would be a lot more work so that's absolutely fine if you'd rather not do that!

With the recent changes to the sub-antarctic islands and my other planned projects, I've also been wondering about whether a blank location map for Zealandia could be feasible - though this is quite a bit area, so there might be too much distortion for an easy one of those? Turnagra (talk) 08:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Turnagra! I am working on the maps but in the current political context I do miss some creative inspiration. Meanwhile I would like to draw your attention to this excellent map of Marlborough Sounds created by @Sting on a request at the fr.wiki. I hope you will enjoy it. Ikonact (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry Ikonact, I completely understand and just hope you look after yourself! Thank you for the heads up on that other map as well, it looks fantastic! Turnagra (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your request, Marshelec, here's the discussion about the Heaphy Track map. Schwede66 07:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever considered giving your quality articles exposure on the main page (i.e. homepage) of Wikipedia? Puhi Kai Iti / Cook Landing Site qualifies for DYK (Did you know ...) and it's guaranteed that it will be shown. If you are lucky, it even gets a photo spot. I can show you the ropes if you are interested. It has to happen within seven days of the article having been created. Schwede66 07:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the idea! I think I'd looked into it briefly in the past but either couldn't quite get my head around the process or couldn't figure out a good hook. Happy to give it a shot if you reckon the articles are up to it, and of course any pointers would be much appreciated! Turnagra (talk) 09:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Schwede66 - I just gave the nomination a shot, I think I did it properly? (on looking back, I forgot to change the date that I made the article, so it's showing up as having been made today...) Turnagra (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's looking good. With regards to the date, I've simply shifted the template to the correct header and that fixes that part. I've watchlisted the nomination page so can assist if needed. Schwede66 20:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Turnagra: you can’t just undo a good faith move because it was undiscussed. You need to include a reason for why you believe the move was wrong. — HTGS (talk) 01:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kia ora HTGS - I was pressed for time this morning when I made the reversion, which is why I didn't fully explain it as I probably should have per WP:BRD. Fundamentally, it's the exact same argument that forms the basis of the current move request: Your new title required more disambiguation, was longer, and overall not an improvement to the article. I note your reference to the Cave Creek Disaster, which happened three years before the dual name was adopted. Recent usage when not talking of the disaster uses the dual name, and so that's a better and more accurate fit for the article per the guidelines for geographic names.

I also note the wording in your original message, and would like to remind you about WP:AGF. Turnagra (talk) 04:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your list of moves at Wikipedia:Requested_moves#March_23,_2022 lists a different move as "* Removed from request 23/3 as dual name does not apply to town" than [1] which has "Diamond Harbour, New Zealand" struck out instead of "Cam River (Canterbury)". I presume one of these two should be altered to match the other. - R. S. Shaw (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up R. S. Shaw! It should be Te Waipapa / Diamond Harbour which was removed from the request. I've properly deleted it now, and will check in later today at the requested moves page to see whether the change has properly been reflected. Turnagra (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Article at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Cielquiparle (talk) 08:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

I’ve observed that you have made a number of non-admin closures of RMs (some not without some blowback from other editors). When I started closing RMs over a decade ago, I made many mistakes as well. The learning curve was challenging. One of the things I did in 2015 was to capture a summary of commonly used arguments in RMs that in my view should be avoided. I share it with you as you may find it useful. Arguments to Avoid in Requested Move Discussions Mike Cline (talk) 12:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kia ora Mike, cheers for this. I've been trying to stick to the fairly straightforward ones for the time being (especially since a lot of the move requests I don't actually have the ability to do because I don't have the required perms yet) but this will definitely be useful going forward. Turnagra (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; could you explain how you determined there was a consensus against this proposal? BilledMammal (talk) 03:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the closing notes, the move has been active for over a month and in that time the prevailing view of the discussion is that the disambiguation of that page (as well as the two other divisions raised as part of the discussion) is fine as it is. There was no consensus on any other potential title, nor grounds for a WP:NOGOODOPTIONS close, while the discussion seemed sufficient to close against a move. Turnagra (talk) 03:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What I am asking is how you weighted the arguments that allowed you to decide that there was a consensus against the move. BilledMammal (talk) 03:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're getting at with this. You argued that the disambiguation wasn't sufficient, other editors said it was – you both cited WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME with different interpretations, and I found the argument from the other editor more compelling. Turnagra (talk) 03:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What I am getting at with this is that I believe you assessed consensus incorrectly, so I am asking you to explain why you found the "oppose" arguments more compelling than the "support" arguments. BilledMammal (talk) 05:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I have done so. I'm curious as to what other outcome you think would be possible in this instance, as a close in favour of a move with no proposed title would bean incredibly poor choice of outcome. I'm happy to reverse my close and relist if you'd prefer, as you clearly won't accept any answer I give and frankly I can't be bothered continuing the discussion, but I suspect this will just delay the same outcome. Turnagra (talk) 06:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you have; you've explained that you found the argument from one of the other editors more compelling, but you haven't explained why, in the context of Wikipedia policy, you found it more compelling. And the two results that I believe would have been appropriate would have been no consensus, or a relist. BilledMammal (talk) 06:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd assumed that it would be clear from their respective points. Now do you want me to relist or not? Turnagra (talk) 06:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't. I'm not certain why you are unwilling to explain why, in the context of Wikipedia policy, you found their respective points more compelling. If you are not willing to explain why, then either changing the result to "no consensus", or a relist, would be appropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 06:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not unwilling, I'm just confused as to how you're not understanding it. Peacemaker's explanation of how the current titles fit the guidelines in WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME makes for a stronger argument than your vague assertion that it doesn't fit the same guideline, especially when that guideline states the disambiguating term should be the common name of the country whose armed forces the unit belongs to – the following section about further disambiguation is not necessary as per Peacemaker's argument that the other units are sufficiently distinct by virtue of being NKVD and Guards Motor divisions respectively. If that's still not good enough for you, I'm happy to go and change it to no consensus. Turnagra (talk) 07:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining. However, I believe you assessed consensus incorrectly; Peacemaker did argue that they are sufficiently disambiguated, but two editors, myself and Necrothesp, argued that usage is still ambiguous as 10th Rifle Division (Soviet Union) can reasonable refer to both of these articles, and since WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME doesn't give guidance on whether usage is ambiguous there is no basis to provide additional weight to Peacemakers argument. As such, I still believe that changing the result to no consensus would be appropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 07:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for opening a second discussion; I have an extensive backlog on my watchlist to go through.

Eight hours after I moved Eyre Mountains/Taka Ra Haka Conservation Park you reverted the move, despite having never edited the article before. Similarly, eight hours after I created Scott Point you moved it to Tiriparepa / Scott Point, despite the article having no links to it at the time. I cannot think of any explanation for either of these examples, particularly the Scott Point example, aside from WP:HOUNDING, and so while I have raised this before with you I need to raise it again; please stop tracking my edits. BilledMammal (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I regularly track a number of pages – particularly around dual names – as well as the new page list for WPNZ. I can assure you I'm not personally tracking your edits – I have far better things to do with my time. Turnagra (talk) 03:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the new page list for WPNZ from the time you moved the article. As you can see, Scott Point was not listed on it. BilledMammal (talk) 03:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well then I'm not sure where I saw it – perhaps on the WPNZ unassessed list? What I can assure you of though is that it wasn't by stalking your history. Turnagra (talk) 04:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At the time you moved the article, it wasn't in the scope of any wikiproject, so it can't have been in WPNZ's unassessed list. In addition, it had no categories, was an orphan, and wasn't on the WPNZ new page list. At this point, I am unable to assume good faith, as there appears to be no way that you could have identified that article without tracking my edits. BilledMammal (talk) 05:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained that other move already – watchlists are a thing as you've said so yourself – and while I can't recall how I found Tiriparepa / Scott Point as that one took place so long ago, I can assure you that you're nowhere near important enough to warrant me paying that much attention to you. Now please stop lobbing false accusations and go find someone else's door to darken. Turnagra (talk) 06:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By itself, that other move would not be suspicious. Surprising, but in the context of WP:AGF I would believe you, as I did the first time you reverted a number of my edits despite never having edited any of those pages. However, with this history, and with the example of Scott Point where neither of us can determine how you could have found the article other than tracking my edits, I cannot believe you, and would ask that you commit to not tracking my edits. BilledMammal (talk) 06:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I may not have edited a specific page, but it's an area (New Zealand places, especially those with dual names) where I've got an extensive edit history, so I'm not sure why you're surprised that I have a bunch of them on my watchlist even if I haven't edited them specifically. I'm not sure what the point of committing to not do something I already don't do is, but if it'll help you sleep better at night then sure, whatever. Turnagra (talk) 06:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 07:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kia ora anō BilledMammal – I received a notification about your recent message and reversion (just to be clear about how I found it). As I've mentioned several times previously, I have a range of articles on my watchlist, even if I may not have edited them in the past. I would have done the exact same move had another editor reverted the page, as indeed I have. I was not tracking your edits, as I have also mentioned several times previously. For instance, having looked at your contributions for the purpose of this reply, I had no idea that you were trying to downgrade WP:POINT. Turnagra (talk) 06:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you guys don't mind me butting in (cc BilledMammal). Turnagra, I'm pretty certain that I know how you would have seen Scott Point. When the article was first created, it contained a link to Ninety Mile Beach, New Zealand. As that beach has a dual name, my guess is that it's on your watchlist, Turnagra. If so, creating the article with that link would have triggered your notice badge to show up in blue. You can check whether that's true by clicking on your notice badge and that should show you all past notices. Schwede66 00:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind; if you can provide an innocent explanation it would make me considerably more comfortable. However, that isn't it; you don't receive notifications for articles being linked to articles that are on your watchlist, you only receive them for articles you have created. BilledMammal (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Stephens Island (New_Zealand). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Specifically, the statement vexatious move requests you and others have carried out is casting WP:ASPERSIONS. This is also not an isolated incident; for example, a few days before you accused me of being fundamentally opposed to indigenous names.

Please be careful to avoid personal attacks in the future. BilledMammal (talk) 07:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ASPERSIONS is not a get out of jail free card. My comments have been based entirely on our history of interactions and your proposed moves on places where even the most stringent opponents of dual names agree that the dual name is the common name – see, for example, on Aoraki / Mount Cook. I would also point out your similar opposition to South African moves (which, for the record, I saw by virtue of engaging with them through the WP:RM page). Until your actions demonstrate otherwise, I can only act based on the evidence which I have seen.

On the subject of casting aspersions, I would also like to point you to the discussion directly above this, in which you accused me of hounding with no proof – a complete failure of WP:AGF, and in the process committing the very thing you're now trying to give me an (unfounded) warning for. Turnagra (talk) 08:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the data; Google News shows 35 articles using only Mount Cook in the past month, compared to 14 using both Aoraki and Mount Cook. Google Scholar shows 434 results using only Mount Cook since 2018, compared to 240 results using both Aoraki and Mount Cook. This is in addition to the ngrams and specific examples I presented in the nomination - there is clearly a strong argument that the WP:COMMONNAME is Mount Cook, and that means that it was - and is - appropriate to open a discussion on the topic.

However, that isn't relevant. Aspersions is a requirement to support your accusations with evidence, and at the appropriate location - Legitimate concerns of fellow editors' conduct should be raised either directly with the editor in question, in a civil fashion, or if necessary on an appropriate noticeboard or dispute-resolution page. You made yours without evidence, and on an article talk page.

Regarding the hounding, evidence was presented, including evidence that you edited an article that you could only have found through my contributions page. BilledMammal (talk) 09:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And now you say This is bordering on WP:WIKILAWYERING. If you believe my conduct is inappropriate, please raise it directly with me, rather than throwing out aspersions on article talk pages - I would also suggest reading Wikipedia:Wikilawyering#Use and misuse of the term. BilledMammal (talk) 09:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Postcard from the West Coast Monday 20 June, 2022

Kia ora koutou and thanks for joining the West Coast Wikipedian at Large project! I hope you enjoy helping improve coverage of the beautiful country of Te Tai Poutini over the next ten weeks • First, bookmark the 2022 project page to keep up with which topics we're working on • For questions and suggestions, use the project Talk page (and watchlist it) • There's a Useful tools section on the project page that's worth checking out • We're doing something different this year: instead of the daily reporting of 2020, we're compiling a weekly report: just edit the Weekly Progress page with what you did when you did it, no pressure to do something every day! • There are prizes for both quantity and quality • Online training for newbie editors (Mon 27 Jun) and Commons contributors (Mon 4 Jul)—see the About page and feel free to recruit friends • The focus for the next couple of weeks is Punakaiki: the pancake rocks (which need their own article?), Paparoa Track (a stub with no photos!), Cave Creek (much work needed, and photos of the track, creek, and memorial), and Barrytown, subject of a Wikiblitz but still with plenty to do • I'll be visiting the Punakaiki area and hopefully presenting on Wikipedia to the DOC team around the 29–30 June (depending on weather), and will take photos of tracks, river, points, islands, and caves–requests taken • Note: there's a West Coast Reptiles Wikiblitz on Sunday 3 July if you want to help improve articles about native lizards • Right, that's plenty! Maybe people would be interested in an online team chat? I could post a Doodle poll… • So looking forward to working with you all on this! • Mānawatia a Matariki, — Giantflightlessbirds

Postcard from the West Coast Tuesday 5 July, 2022

Kia ora koutou and thank you all for your hard work over the last couple of weeks! We've had a cold snap here on the Coast, but at least the rain's slackened off and I've been able to get out on the blue sunny days and take snapshots • Schwede66 has been sorting out the Paparoa Range, cleaning up mountain wikidata, and expanding the Pororari River • We have a new article about the Truman Track, and a great photo selection for Cave Creek • Our hardest worker has been Marshalc, creating new articles on the Pancake Rocks, Bullock Creek, and the Inland Pack Track amongst others • I took a field trip to Punakaiki and sorted out the Wikidata and photos for every scenic spot between the Strongman Mine Memorial (Q112859334) and Hatters Bay (Q32217346) • If you're still thinking about helping, we could do with expanding the Punakaiki article, and sorting the best Pancake Rocks photos into a Commons gallery • Greymouth photographer Jase Blair donated some beautiful photos of Paparoa National Park which need using • The Avatar moth from Denniston Plateau (with its newly-improved article) will be RNZ's Critter of the Week on Friday • New resource: Mark Pickering's book The Coastal Journey (2010) (Q112841717) is free to download and a great reference • This coming weekend I'm off to Moana on Lake Brunner (to photograph the bays, walks, and especially the Kotuku Model Bungalow (those are all Start-quality icons, hint hint) • Check out the Project page to see jobs there are to do, and how you can help out! Ka kite ano. — Giantflightlessbirds

Hi Turnagra, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed' and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned prolific creators of articles where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.

Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Schwede66 20:13, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Postcard from the West Coast Tuesday 19 July, 2022

Kia ora koutou and once again thank you for all your mahi over the last fortnight • We've been working on articles on the Lake Brunner area; the lake's article is looking heaps better, and it's in the queue for DYK • Marshelec, Swede66, and Turnagra have been the putting in lots of effort, with new articles on the Croesus Track, Mount Te Kinga, and the Pike19 Memorial Track amongst others • We've rescued lots of great photos from Flickr and other public collections • But these weren't enough: I did two field trips to photograph up and down the Punakaiki coast, and halfway around the Arnold Valley and Lake Brunner; numerous new Commons categories and Wikidata images resulted • Progress at the lake was derailed by having to be filmed for the evening news, editing Wikipedia in the open air while being attacked by sandflies (our project mascot is well chosen) • Over the next two weeks the focus shifts to Karamea, all the caves and walks of the Ōpārara Basin, and the Heaphy Track • There is plenty to do: the Wangapeka Track, Honeycomb Hill Cave, and Kahurangi National Park need massive work, so I'm stoked that Marshall and Lyn are joining me for a few days this weekend at Karamea to help • This is an area that critically relies on tourism, and it's embarassing the coverage is so bad in Wikipedia • Check out the Project page to see jobs there are to do, and how you can help out! Ka kite ano. — Giantflightlessbirds

Gatoclass (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Postcard from the West Coast Monday 1 Aug, 2022

Kia ora koutou and thanks for helping with this project • It's been a busy fortnight: I visited Karamea with Marshall and Lyn, and we spent the day on the Fenian Track, which now has its own article and over 100 photos of the valley, the local flora and fauna, and the three caves we explored • Yes, there were cave wētā and spiders • I also got to meet with local historians, photographers, and nature buffs who are keen to share photos and deluged me with print materials • The double hook featuring the Paparoa Track and the Pororari River articles appeared in DYK on 25 July and they got 3000 readers between them, but the accompanying DOC video clip got over 400,000 views! • The newly-created Copland Track article was in DYK the next day, and Lake Brunner will feature soon • Great work, everyone • Coming up: Te Wahipounamu and the Haast Pass—I'll be spending three days exploring and photographing the area, and could definitely do with help fleshing out the skeletal coverage of the lakes, localities, rivers, and wetlands of that beautiful part of the world • Check out the Project page to see the north-to-south list for South Westland, and pick something to work on; ask me for a job if you don't have one! Ka kite ano. — Giantflightlessbirds

Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 10:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Postcard from the West Coast Monday 15 Aug, 2022

Kia ora koutou; we're coming up to the home stretch! • I got back from South Westland with about 400 photos to upload and categorise into Commons • The DOC team down there are very excited about our project; they're busy reopening the Haast-Paringa Cattle Track with a new swingbridge, and I promised we would create an article with photos of all the huts • Archives New Zealand have a wonderful collection of tourist publicity photos on DigitalNZ; you could search them for pics of West Coast places for articles (see the ones I used in Pleasant Flat) • There's still plenty to do over the last fortnight of the project—if you could find some time to pick one of the biggest gaps and have a go at filling it, that would be great • in Haast, we need articles on Okuru (currently a redirect), Hannahs Clearing, the Roaring Billy and Thunder Creek Falls, and Ship Creek; I have photos of all of them • You could also check back through the Punakaiki, Lake Brunner, and North Westland lists for anything that needs expanding • In other news, I'm running an online workshop 7 pm August 23rd on Adding Photos to Commons; enrolment's free, share with any keen photographers you know • We're also having a Wikiblitz this coming Sunday to try to improve the articles about West Coast reptiles, and could use help • Thank you for all your hard work; I'd like to organise an online meetup on Zoom at the end of the project to look back at what we've done and have a think about next steps; will send some possible times • Ka kite ano. — Giantflightlessbirds

Postcard from the West Coast Monday 29 Aug, 2022

Kia ora koutou; well, it's time to wrap up this project • What a wonderful and short ten weeks it's been; I've really appreciated all the mahi people have put into improving articles about the West Coast • There's a summary of what we've managed to achieve in the final report • Briefly: 24 new articles, 5 of them in DYK, 974 edits to 193 articles, adding 73,800 words and 653 citations • We uploaded 1126 photos into numerous new Commons categories • Standouts for me were Schwede66's sorting out all the Paparoa mountains named after famous scientists, Marshelec's work on Karamea and Bullock Creek, and Turnagra creating the Copland Track article • There are small prizes going out to those three, but I also want to acknowledge all the effort of Paora, Chocmilk03, and Gertrude206—great stuff • I'm about to head off to Europe for a month, to attend the Wikimedia Summit and learn what European Wikipedians are up to, but despite time zones would like to have an online catchup with participants soon • Thank you again for all your hard work; ka kite ano and I hope we'll have another bash at the West Coast again soon. Don't be strangers. — Giantflightlessbirds

	The West Coast Stamp of Approval
	Thank you so much for all your work for the West Coast Wikipedian at Large (The Sequel) project, and I've a small thank-you prize for you which I'll pop into the post—will message you for a mailing address. Your help sorting out macrons and creating nicely-illustrated articles was much appreciated. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see this as a content dispute, or an issue with editor behaviour? For the former, see WP:Dispute resolution, and perhaps WP:Mediation. for the latter, there's WP:ANI and if you get no satisfaction there, WP:ARBCOM. However, there are several parties on each side of this discussion (so WP:Third opinion is not suitable) and by taking it to the "drama boards" you will be seeking comment from people who may not understand the New Zealand perspectives on use of Māori and macrons and there is a chance it will backfire onto you.

One suggestion at the dispute resolution link is to disengage, and I have at least partially followed this strategy myself.-gadfium 04:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the move as observed but should it not be Whakatāne Seamount ?ChaseKiwi (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kia ora ChaseKiwi - I thought about that, but it seems that it's usually just referred to as "Whakatāne" as the name from what I can gather (which is consistent with other seamounts in the area). As such, "seamount" is filling more of the role of disambiguation in the title, with the current title seeming more natural than parenthetical. Keen to get your take on it if you reckon it works better as a proper noun though. Turnagra (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its its official name New Zealand Gazetteer entry ChaseKiwi (talk) 23:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My bad - feel free to change it! I feel a bit guilty having already had to correct one typo in it... Turnagra (talk) 23:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good on you for detecting island issue in recent discussion on category renaming. Missed the fact that up to 100m or so under present sea level a maar could occur rather than a seamount. Please see Category talk:Seamounts of New Zealand ChaseKiwi (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 10:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(You may have noticed) The task force has been created per our discussion the other week, I invite you to join it if you are still interested :)

Carolina2k22 • (talk) • (edits) 07:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Carolina - definitely keen to help out, I just need to figure out how to rearrange the userboxes so not to lose how well they line up with the Piopio picture on my userpage currently! Turnagra (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough! It does look quite lovely; I'm glad you're still interested! Carolina2k22 • (talk) • (edits) 23:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't remove questions from the various Help desks, or from other people's talk pages, even when a question has been answered, or if something is no longer relevant. It looks like you did that here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&diff=prev&oldid=1131660908.

You can, however, always remove things from your own Talk page. Other people may find the information useful and informative. Thanks! David10244 (talk) 07:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry David - I figured it'd be okay as it was my own question and wasn't long after posting. Will make sure not to next time! Turnagra (talk) 07:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kia ora, I know it's exhausting but thought you might like to know the Clutha/Mata-Au RFM has opened up again. TreeReader (talk) 07:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks TreeReader - I was already aware and had been trying to figure out how best to formulate my argument. As a word of caution, I'd suggest not paging people like this as it may be seen as WP:CANVASSING and could cause votes to be discounted. The better approach is to alert relevant wikiprojects, such as WP:WPNZ. Turnagra (talk) 07:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok thanks for letting me know. I thought it felt a bit sneaky but it's so frustrating going round in circles every 6 months! TreeReader (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, it can be a pain. I'd suggest keeping an eye on the requested moves section of the WPNZ article alerts so that you can see when move requests you may be interested in crop up, it's always an ongoing issue! Turnagra (talk) 07:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I wasn't aware of the alerts section on WPNZ, that's good to know. TreeReader (talk) 06:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Thank you for participating in Articles for Creation's January 2023 Backlog Drive! You reviewed 50 drafts, for a total of 63.5 points. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 00:43, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Was a pleasure to be able to help out where I could. Turnagra (talk) 01:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BorgQueen (talk) 12:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well done nominating this! Now we just need the community to upload some images and videos. Schwede66 01:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! And yeah, I'm a bit surprised that there's such a relative lack of images so far given how widespread the damage is. I assume that people in those areas probably have more pressing things on their mind at the moment though. Turnagra (talk) 04:48, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Taiari / Chalky Inlet 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 Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Taiari / Chalky Inlet you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Taiari / Chalky Inlet for comments about the article, and Talk:Taiari / Chalky Inlet/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kia ora, I have a Christchurch locality quandary. There's a Wikidata item for the Burwood Plantation, which some sources online equate with the Burwood Resource Recovery Park, but the location seems to be the same as Bottle Lake Forest. Do you know if these are names for the same place? --Prosperosity (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Prosperosity I'm not 100% sure, but my gut is that they're the same thing - or at least are now. There seems to be a topomap result which points to the plantation being where there's a subdivision now, so maybe they used to be distinct but have since combined? Turnagra (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm....in that case, I'll merge the items for now, and if it turns out that they're different, we can always recreate them. --Prosperosity (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think "Burwood Plantation" and "Bottle Lake Forest Park" are used interchangeably. The recovery park is a small area within the plantation / park. Schwede66 04:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

-- RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thanks for your hard work in AfC over the last few weeks, usually a thankless task...! Your work is not going unnoticed. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 07:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Just wanting to try and do my bit to get the backlog down! Turnagra (talk) 10:01, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The International Literacy Summit, the Institute of Occupational Safety & Health ( IOSH) have all stated that OSH literacy is a literacy comparable to computer literacy, health literacy, financial literacy etc. It meets all standards to be classified as a key skill literacy. Davidmagee9 (talk) 05:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidmagee9 Thanks for the context, I don't have any issues about it being its own article in that case! It might be worth editing the article to mention that stuff as well if it's not in there already. Turnagra (talk) 06:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Turnagra. I appreciate your time and will follow your kind advice. David Magee Davidmagee9 (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I wish to express my concern over the recent submission decline of a page that I've patiently waited four months for approval, due to the presence of a single citation that could have been effortlessly excised. I feel it's critical to secure approval for this page at the earliest because a search for 'Mike Boateng' on Google only displays search results for the Michael Boateng whose page I created. Nevertheless, the accompanying knowledge panel is linked to a different Michael Boateng of lesser notability, and this confusion is negatively impacting the search results of the intended Mike Boateng, especially since the other individual has a criminal record.

In alignment with the notability guidelines stipulated by Wikipedia, I'd like to present the following arguments to emphasize Mike Boateng's worthiness of a Wikipedia page.

1. Extensive Exposure: Mike Boateng, a prominent Black TV personality in the UK, has been featured extensively in credible and independent media outlets.
2. Public Impact: His active role in popular reality TV shows such as Love Island and Celebrity Ex on the Beach has notably shaped public views and dialogues.
3. Accolades: Mike's double nomination for the National Reality TV Award for categories like "Best Male Personality of the Year" and "Reality Personality of the Year" attests to his industry-wide recognition and further validates his notability.
4. Comparison: In juxtaposition with other notable figures such as Jon Clark and Josh Ritchie, Mike's significance and contributions seem just as noteworthy, if not superior.

In light of these arguments, I kindly request that this page be approved. I appreciate your understanding. Thank you. Justtheeditor1 (talk) 11:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Justtheeditor1 has resubmitted Draft:Mike Boateng and it is awaiting a reviewer. Your call on whether you want to revisit that or leave it to someone else. You should be aware that at a Teahouse entry about this draft, Justtheeditor1 wrote "Under different usernames, I work on developing Wikipedia pages for UK reality TV stars and their related ventures." I am researching and considering starting a Sockpuppet investigation. David notMD (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks David - I'm happy to leave this for someone else to get a second opinion on the article. I'd also note their other comment in the tea house that they work with a group of people. I'm happy to leave that side of things with you as I'm not overly familiar with it. Turnagra (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David,

You seem to be more concerned about this comment than any of my previous speaking about a concerning trend of unconscious bias when accessing submissions on people of colour. This fact is quite revealing. As also mentioned in the comments (which you conveniently seem to have missed), I’ve said to provide more context, my comment about "different usernames" doesn't mean I control these accounts. Instead, I assist in creating content within a community of fellow celebrity enthusiasts who then create the pages. This approach ensures that we don't violate the rules against sockpuppetry. Justtheeditor1 (talk) 06:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kia ora Justtheeditor1 - as I mentioned in the Teahouse, me declining your article wasn't due solely to that single source, but rather issues around the reliability of the sources you chose more generally and questions about whether Boateng meets the notability criteria for articles (per WP:NPEOPLE). My view was that the sources you provided weren't reliable enough, nor did they demonstrate that Boateng had notability outside of the context of Love Island, and as a result brought WP:BLP1E into consideration.

I'd also like to vehemently deny your aspersion that my decline was in part based on racism - nothing could be further from the truth. Turnagra (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fully acknowledge and respect your viewpoints. My remarks weren't targeted at you, and I concurred with your initial reasons for rejecting the submission. Instead, my comments stemmed from a troubling pattern that my group has detected during the submission process. We don't usually face these approval challenges when dealing with lesser-known white celebrities. However, our initial submissions for celebrities of color never get accepted, unlike our other submissions.

As you can observe, substantial efforts have been undertaken by me and others in the wiki community to elevate this page to the requisite standards for approval. Would you be so kind as to reassess the page and determine if it now meets the criteria? Justtheeditor1 (talk) 06:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can we also take a brief pause to empathize and objectively evaluate the strong evidence present in what I've penned? It's hard to fathom the degree of frustration experienced by individuals like Mike who are seemingly at a loss to resolve such issues. This is precisely why groups like ours come into being. If you Google "Mike Boateng," EVERY result points to him. Various articles, images, the works. Yet, the knowledge panel that emerges is associated with a different, lesser-known Michael Boateng, whose Wikipedia page appears alongside all of Mike's search results. As a long-time follower of Mike, I've witnessed him express his struggles on social media about how this mix-up has hindered his job prospects and potential brand partnerships because it's the first thing that comes up in searches. The wrong person appearing on his search results due to Wikipedia. This is precisely the kind of situation Wikipedia was designed to address: to serve as an impartial repository of verifiable, well-established facts. Mike Boateng's truth is being obscured online by another individual's identity, and as a collective community, we should aspire to ensure that the facts remain untainted and truthful for both lesser-known and more prominent individuals. Justtheeditor1 (talk) 07:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can completely understand that frustration and have experienced something similar myself in the past (incidentally also relating to some borderline racist approaches taken by others). I'd make a few general points first:

• I can't speak to your other submissions as I haven't seen them, but if you think there's genuinely some underlying bias there it could be worth teasing that out a bit. I'd suggest starting a subpage within your userspace (see WP:SUBPAGE) and having a table to review your group's draft articles with links to the versions at the time of their review so that you're able to build a stronger case and see whether there's any other differences which might cause it (or which can be pre-emptively discounted before someone uses it to explain the declines)
• With regards to the google results, it's worth bearing in mind that these are often tailored based on google's understanding of you and aren't always representative of society as a whole. For instance, if I search for "Hamilton" I almost exclusively get results for the city here in New Zealand, rather than the musical, historical figure, or cities elsewhere. If I search Mike Boateng as someone who has never seen a single episode of Love Island or watched English club football, my results are about 50/50 between the two of them. This is why wikipedia doesn't generally rely on things like search results when determining primary topics for page moves, for instance.
• Were this page to be accepted, the current Michael Boateng would likely remain at that title, per WP:SMALLDETAILS - so there's still a risk that search results would be confused.

With all this said, if you would like me to I am happy to take another look at the article - or else wait for another reviewer to give a second opinion. One thing I would suggest before this, though, is to have a look at some of the pages around reliable sources (WP:RS, WP:DEPS, and WP:RSP) and check the lists in the latter against the sources you've got. My concern is that some of the sources you've got, even if they're not explicitly mentioned on this list, feel as though they're at an equivalent level of reliability to sources which are listed. This means that the article could be at greater risk of deletion down the line, and making sure your sources are at a good level (see WP:42) helps to make the article much stronger and able to withstand any challenges that come up in the future. Turnagra (talk) 07:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your thoughtful and detailed response. Your insight is valuable and has given me much to consider. I truly respect and appreciate the time and effort you've put into your analysis, and it's genuinely refreshing to find someone like you in the Wikipedia community offering such unbiased reviews.

I fully understand your perspective and find your suggestions to be quite helpful. I'll start by discussing with my group the idea of starting a subpage within our userspace, as per your suggestion, and work on developing a table to review our group's draft articles. This way, we can build a more robust case while also identifying any potential differences that could influence our submissions.

In regards to the search results, your point makes perfect sense. Google's algorithms can indeed personalize search results based on user behavior, which may not be representative of a broader societal view. This aspect hadn't occurred to me previously, so thank you for pointing it out.

Concerning the article, based on the changes that have been made, I kindly request that you take another look at the page. I believe it now meets the criteria for notability, but of course, I respect your expert judgment and will accept your final decision. We've also taken into consideration the advice you've provided regarding the reliability of sources (WP:RS, WP:DEPS, and WP:RSP). We're making continued efforts to ensure our sources meet the required level of reliability so as to strengthen the article and protect it from potential challenges in the future.

Once again, thank you for your guidance, and I look forward to any further feedback you may have. Justtheeditor1 (talk) 09:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll try and find time but it might not be til this weekend. Before I do, though, I'd suggest taking another look through your sources in light of the links I sent (particularly the last two) and double check that you think these meet the relevant threshold for reliability on wikipedia. Turnagra (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response and for your willingness to take the time to review the article. I appreciate your guidance and the links you've shared, particularly the last two, which offer insightful perspectives on the standards of source reliability on Wikipedia.

In light of your advice, I will revisit my sources and double-check their alignment with Wikipedia's standards for reliability. I understand the importance of ensuring that any information added to Wikipedia is well-sourced, accurate, and adheres to the principles of verifiability and neutrality.

Thank you once again for your time and effort. I look forward to hearing your thoughts and feedback once you've had a chance to review the article. Justtheeditor1 (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Turnagra,

I understand you may not have had time this weekend. However, when you do manage to find some time, could you kindly review the article? All the necessary updates have been made to ensure the article meets the relevant threshold for reliability on Wikipedia. Thank you once again for your assistance. Justtheeditor1 (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I got caught up by other things and haven't had much time for Wikipedia. At a quick look, I'd see whether there are alternate sources for the material you've currently used the mirror and IMDb for if possible, as these seem to have borderline reliability. This isn't necessarily to say that those sources would be a barrier to it being accepted, as I haven't had time for a proper look yet. Turnagra (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Turnagra,

It's been a while since your last message and I was wondering if you might have a chance to give the article a more thorough review now? Your insights would be invaluable. Justtheeditor1 (talk) 11:37, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Justtheeditor1, this completely slipped my mind. I'll try to take a look this afternoon sometime. Turnagra (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thank you. Justtheeditor1 (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Turnagra,

Firstly, I want to again express my gratitude for your role in ensuring the accuracy and quality of Wikipedia's content. Your hard work is truly invaluable.

However, I wanted to bring up a concern regarding the review process of the Mike Boateng page. I completely understand that you may be dealing with a multitude of tasks and I appreciate your commitment towards maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia. But it's been quite disheartening to see the delay in the review of our page, especially given how prompt you were to issue the initial decline.

Since your initial review, the page has undergone substantial edits, both from myself and other Wikipedia users. We've taken into account your feedback regarding notability and have made concerted efforts to meet the standards outlined in the notability guidelines (WP:ORGCRIT). I firmly believe that the page now stands in compliance with Wikipedia's stringent criteria.

I understand your initial reservations, but I feel the initial decline might have been a tad harsh considering the significant improvements made since then. I would greatly appreciate it if you could expedite the review process and re-evaluate the Mike Boateng page at your earliest convenience.

Thank you again for your time and efforts. Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated. Justtheeditor1 (talk) 09:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your frustration, and please know that it's not intentional - I just genuinely keep forgetting, I've got a bunch of other stuff on and I end up spending my limited wikipedia time on other things. I've taken a look, and while I still have some questions about notability I'm happy to take your word for it as someone more familiar with the topic and get the ball rolling on approval. I'm still a bit iffy about the reliability of some of the sources too - the one source which is probably untenable more than the others is IMDb, you'll definitely need a more reliable source for the date of birth (see WP:IMDb). Turnagra (talk) 09:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's completely understandable that managing multiple tasks can be demanding, and I value the time you dedicated to this process amidst your other commitments.

Your willingness to start the approval process truly shows your commitment to collaboration and fairness.

Once again, thank you for your understanding, consideration, and your continued efforts to uphold the quality of Wikipedia's content. Justtheeditor1 (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Turnagra,

I hope this message finds you well. I recently received a decline on my article submission, and I appreciate your feedback regarding the sources I included. After carefully considering your suggestions, I am seeking guidance regarding the references in question.

It came to my attention that a few of the articles I referenced, although sourced from reputable magazines, are exclusively available in printed press and are not accessible online. In light of this, I would greatly appreciate your advice on how to handle these references appropriately.

Given the stricter requirements for citing sources in biographies of living people, as outlined in WP:BLP, I understand the importance of ensuring the accuracy and availability of all sources before resubmitting the article for approval.

Thank you for your time and assistance in this matter. I look forward to your guidance on how to proceed with the references.

Best regards, Cestgeorge (talk) 05:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mōrena Cestgeorge, thanks for reaching out. I'm more than happy to help where I can (though acknowledging that a lot of the references are in French and so I won't be able to comment on whether they're reliable or back up what you've used them for). Citing paper sources is fine and happens all the time, the key thing is making sure they're reliable and independent (see WP:42). Having a look over WP:Citing sources is a good place to start too, and I'll provide more feedback on the article when I get a chance. The key thing with BLP is that everything is backed up by reliable sources. Turnagra (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response and willingness to assist. I appreciate your guidance on ensuring reliable and independent sources for citations. I have taken note of your suggestions and will review WP:Citing sources for further information. I look forward to receiving your feedback on the article. Maintaining accuracy and adhering to BLP guidelines is important to me. If you have any additional recommendations or specific areas to focus on, please let me know. Thank you again for your support. Cestgeorge (talk) 13:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, perhaps I'll hold off on the more proper review until you've had a go with the guidance from that link? Turnagra (talk) 10:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this message finds you well. I'm writing to inform you that I've taken the time to thoroughly review the guidance provided in the Wikipedia:Citing sources article. In accordance with the guidelines outlined there, I have made several improvements to the article in question.

Specifically, I have addressed dead links by replacing them with proper citations and have made efforts to locate notable references, with a preference for English sources. It is worth noting that while I have focused on English citations, some of the most notable references are in French.

Given the recent updates and improvements I've made to the article, I believe it is now an appropriate time for a more comprehensive review. I kindly request your assistance in conducting a thorough evaluation of the article and providing any necessary feedback or further guidance for refinement.

Thank you in advance for your time and consideration. Cestgeorge (talk) 14:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to remind you of my previous message sent over a month ago regarding the article in question. I kindly request your attention to the detailed improvements I made, as outlined in my previous communication. Your review and feedback on those changes would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Warm regards, Cestgeorge (talk) 12:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay Cestgeorge, things got away from me. I'll try and look at it soon! Though if you haven't already, please resubmit it in case someone else gets to it ahead of me. Turnagra (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Turnagra, you recently declined this page with a suggestion to do a heavy rewrite for a more neutral and encyclopedic tone. I made several changes and would appreciate further suggestions when you have time to look at the revised draft. Thank you. Igor Markov 10:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the changes you've made are a good start, but parts of it still feel very promotional. I think the best idea is to have a look over articles for similar people (particularly those with higher quality classes) and see how they're written. It should feel neutral, not as though it was written by a promoter of the person in question. Turnagra (talk) 10:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Turnagra, thank you for the encouragement. I made another round of changes, hopefully in the right direction. I am hesitant about the quote in the last sentence. For one, it explains why the Order of Merit 3rd degree was awarded, but the text is so general that it fits the descriptions of "reads like advertisement" that we so want to avoid. Keep it or ditch it? - What do you think?

- Igor Markov 02:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments: "I suspect this will be notable, but the referencing in the history section needs to improve before it can be accepted"

I have added more references. I should also point out that ACTUS is the second of 3 sources for the OFR's work. Both the first (ISO 20022) and FIX, which was added a year after ACTUS, already have Wikipedia pages. If there is something specific you feel has not been referenced, please say so. Thank you. Yankinthebank (talk) 10:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I think the sources you've added are sufficient, and I see that someone else has already accepted the draft - congrats! Turnagra (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for recent review of my draft article Draft:Miguel Ablóniz. Having created many dozens of articles here in the last twenty years, it's rather frustrating that it was declined on the basis of insufficient citation, considering that this simple three paragraph article contained no less than five in-line citations, which seems like it should be more than sufficient. However, we move on. You noted in particular that none of the items listed in the "selected publications" section were cited. But, indeed, they are themselves perfectly valid citations in the meaning set forth for general citations as defined in Wikipedia:Citing sources. After all, they give the author, the name of the work, and the publishing house. But perhaps you can help me figure out how to provide a better citation format for these, and what template is most appropriately used? The issue, essentially, is that these scores are (or were - several are out-of-print) published by well-known but specialty publishing houses (e.g., Berben or Ricordi) that do not generally use ISBN identifiers, or even necessarily state the year of publication. Nevertheless, their existence is easily established from online sheet music resellers ([for example]). For some, at least, the publishers catalogue number is also available, but that is about it. What do you advise? Fawcett5 (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kia ora Fawcett5 - I can understand that it would have been frustrating given the range of articles you've created. I had that the publications mentioned could be the sources themselves for that section, so I'm happy with that, but I think my concern with the body above is still there. The entire second half of the main paragraph is uncited (everything from Milan onwards), with that section containing a few claims that I think would benefit from being backed up. Turnagra (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tunagra - OK, I have added some additional references, and also made sure an existing reference was in the right spots. While not perfect, the spirit of Wikipedia is that other users can take a small article and grow and improve it. Having this one sit on ice any longer serves no-one. Please, let's move this out of draft so that others may contribute. Fawcett5 (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fawcett5 I'll try and have a look when I get a chance, but I've been pretty busy lately unfortunately. If you haven't already, I'd suggest resubmitting the draft if you think it's up to scratch, then another reviewer might have a chance to get to it before I do. Turnagra (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it took multiple months for anyone to even take a look last time. So, I'll wait for you, thanks. You know, as a long-time contributor and admin here, I really do think that this review process is totally contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Articles are best improved and expanded by having a lot of eyes on them. In my opinion, if there isn't a question about the fundamental notability of the article subject, and a stub article is evidently created in good faith and isn't basically just junk, we are all much better served by moving things to the main space earlier than later. A good article results from the efforts of many contributors. Fawcett5 (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fawcett5 apologies for the delay - I think it's fine to accept, but the script I use can't actually do all the required things unless it's submitted as a draft (and I can't both submit and accept the same draft). If you're able to submit it I'll go in and accept it.

I'd also say that I didn't realise your history or the history of the draft at first, before reviewing the first time. I agree that the AfC process has some issues, particularly the length of time it takes to get to articles. I'm actually surprised you're not autopatrolled, given your role and your history of articles. Turnagra (talk) 05:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK thank you! I've gone ahead and resubmitted. Fawcett5 (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Turnagra, thank you for patrolling articles in drafts! I would like you to review the article, I have added links to reliable sources. Agneta 92 (talk) 09:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kia ora! The Wikimedia Aotearoa New Zealand User Group invites you to read about the call for applications for a Wikipedian-at-Large for Aotearoa New Zealand in 2024. Group members are happy to explain the process and discuss ideas with interested editors.

Sent by Zippybonzo on behalf of MurielMary using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 06:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have finished editing the rest of the 2022–23 LEN Euro Cup. I have also put in more third party sources. Can it finally be approved? Or is the review already going on? ILoveSport2006 (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Super Rugby Americas 2023 article has more third party sources than before. Can it be approved yet? ILoveSport2006 (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe