User talk:Maltazarian

	Destubathon Barnstar
	Much appreciate your effort in the Wikipedia:Destubathon of the Americas contest! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:53, 2 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Dr. Blofeld Thanks! Sorry for not submitting to the prizes tab to get the barnstar, but I'm waiting for a few more checkmarks. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 18:32, 2 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

For my own record, I destubbed 64 articles, completing the challenge of destubbing an article each for 59 territorial entities.

List of the articles I destubbed:

⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 17:46, 4 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

		The Mediator Barnstar
		In recognition of the amount of work you've put into mediating several discussions in such a highly contentious topic. Even if some disputes still inevitably boil over, I want you to be aware that your consistent endeavor to keep editors on track in building consensus is greatly appreciated. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Butterscotch, that means a lot to me because I do make a very conscious effort to do just that. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 22:12, 2 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I was considering sending you a similar barnstar tbh. Thank you for what you do. Simonm223 (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Caecilia volcani

added a link pointing to Subterranean

Chaco side-necked turtle

added a link pointing to Iris

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 3 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Your closure is confusing, at it's unclear as to what the new title is. Can you change the bolded text to "Moved to 2026 Ebola epidemic" or something of the sort? Thanks, Feeglgeef (talk) 03:10, 5 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Huh. That's a quirk with Move+, I don't know why it doesn't add anything to the close itself. It correctly documents it in the talk page banner, but doesn't mention it in the close. I think I remember seeing this happen before and editing it manually.

I will fix it of course. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 03:12, 5 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Feeglgeef (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

What exactly happened? I apologize, but I'm confused. Why does Championnat National 3 redirect to Championnat National 1? Did you fix the links correctly? That is not right. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:19, 6 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I forgot to change it to target Championnat National 2 after switching Championnat National 2 with Championnat National 1 and then Championnat National 2 (at that point a redirect to Championnat National 1) with Championnat National 3. I fixed it. The rest was alright. I am still fixing links that were going to Championnat National 2 that should now be targeted to Championnat National 1, which isn't as simple to fix. I'm using WP:AWB to do it but I've still got about 1,500 links to inspect to make sure they're going to the correct article. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 00:28, 6 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Understood. Make sure you fix some of the redirects as well, like CFA 2 and Championnat de France Amateur 2, or Championnat de France Amateur. Last I checked those had issues too. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:30, 6 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Alright, thanks for letting me know. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 00:35, 6 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

There's existing issues at Vitinha (footballer, born February 2000) and Rodney County, New Zealand as well following page moves you've done. Neither of these titles should be disambiguation pages. • Quinn (talk • it/its) 01:37, 7 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

That's unrelated; they should have been swapped with Vitinha (disambiguation) and Rodney County (disambiguation) respectively after being swapped with their base names. I'm not sure why that didn't happen at the end. I can't remember quite frankly. Either I forgot or something about my swap procedure is off. I will have to be more careful with those types of double swaps going forward. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 03:10, 7 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

(Also I've obviously gone and fixed it.) ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 03:11, 7 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think we need a series of sensible redirects, e.g. Championnat National 3 (1993–2026) → Championnat National 2 to reflect the old name and the new name, and then make changes like [[Championnat National 3]] → [[Championnat National 3 (1993–2026)|Championnat National 3]] (rather than [[Championnat National 2|Championnat National 3]] to avoid any confusion. Thoughts? GiantSnowman 11:07, 7 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

That sounds good to me. I've finished most of the clean-up related to making sure wikilinks referring to the old Championnat National 2 are pointing to what is now Championnat National 1, which was the most urgent fix, but I'm certainly for doing what you suggested and also changing what is currently piped as Championnat National 1|Championnat National 2 to Championnat National 2 (1993–2026)|Championnat National 2 with Championnat National 2 (1993–2026) redirecting to Championnat National 1.

It won't take much work as I can be completely sure anything using the Championnat National 1|Championnat National 2 pipe needs to be changed, which wasn't the case for changing Championnat National 2 wikilinks, some of which had to be changed to outright Championnat National 1, such as a player article saying they play in that league, while others had to be piped because they were referring to the league when it was using the old name.. I had to check over 1,000 articles to see which one was which.

I will look into setting up WP:AWB to do it. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 11:22, 7 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

@GiantSnowman Alright the 723 or so articles that contained [[Championnat National 1|Championnat National 2]] have been changed to instead have [[Championnat National 2 (1993–2026)|Championnat National 2]]. I don't see much need to do the same with Championnat National 3 because there is no new Championnat National 3 for it to be confused with. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 11:53, 8 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

That deals with the new CN2 - what about CN1? GiantSnowman 17:56, 8 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I mean the old one was simply called "Championnat National" instead of "Championnat National 1", so we don't have the same issue of there being a ton of links out there trying to get to one place but going to another as Championnat National is still a redirect to Ligue 3, but now that you say it I suppose it might be better for it to be a disambiguation page between Ligue 3, Championnat National 1 and Championnat National 2. Do you think we should turn it into a disambiguation page and replace links currently going to Championnat National with [[Championnat National (1993–2026)|Championnat National]]? I'm already going to have to clean up articles saying a player, manager or club "plays in Championnat National" to "plays in Ligue 3" and if you want to make a disambiguation I would be able to change the links alongside the clean-up. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 04:59, 10 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for maintaining the parity between Template:Style and Template:Manual of Style when you BOLDly removed links to non-MOS stuff.

JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 15:22, 7 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I actually made sure to do that because I read the edit logs first and saw your reasoning for adding some of them was to do that! If not for you, I wouldn't have thought of the navbar. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 20:36, 7 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I wish I could do editnotices to make it more obvious. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 22:15, 7 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Maltazarian,

I would like to know why the requested move discussion at Talk:New South Wales A and B sets#Requested move 1 June 2026 needed to be relisted rather than closed as not moved.

As far as I can tell, the discussion has a good amount of responses so consensus is present and the responses are unanimously against this proposal. Per WP:RMNOMIN, a requested move does not need any minimum participation. I fear that overusing the relisting mechanism is a violation of WP:NOTBUREAU, relisting doesn't attract further people than may have participated in the first place, it's just painful for me to see many more responses against this proposal that I strongly believed in.

Thank you for your consideration. Qwerty123M (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

My bad I was actually intending to just reply to the thread but out of reflex put it inside of a relisting message. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 04:30, 10 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Pretty weak arguments for such a move. Why no relist? Srnec (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't think the argument that Sex is ambiguous is weak. The opposing arguments were similarly just an assertion that it is the primary topic, and there was decent evidence in the form of incoming wikilinks, a good chunk of which were intending to go to Sexual intercourse, Human sexual activity or Human sexuality, and "Sex" is one of if not the most likely search term for the first two of those. One of the opposing !votes was based entirely on opposition to "Genetic sex" rather than "Biological sex", another one was opposing without a rationale and a third was opposing "Biological sex" on the basis that it just means "Sex", which is a bit weak as it doesn't really address the issue of ambiguity (a naturally disambiguated title is supposed to "mean the same thing" as the base name while removing ambiguity). ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 04:50, 10 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

But which one of sex, sexual intercourse and human sexuality is non-biological? Your close was directionally correct, but it is very strange in an era where it seems every RM gets relisted at least once that this one does not, despite the fact that the title chosen was not the one proposed and there was a mix of support and oppose with very little real discussion. I think you should revert and relist. Srnec (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't see the point in reopening and relisting a requested move discussion just for the sake of doing so, and to do so when I believe there is a consensus would be to move against that consensus, which I don't think is justified. The exact reason I believe there is a consensus is as follows:

The nominator and 7 supporters were in favour, with 5 opposers. One opposing !vote did not directly address the PTOPIC question (a hatnote being able to handle confusion need not mean there is a PTOPIC, per WP:DABTWO, easily confused with WP:TWODABS) with the objection that the article isn't just about genetics addressed by participants favouring the alterative title "Biological sex". Another opposing !vote had neither its own rationale nor a reference to another reply's rationale. That leaves 8 against and 3 for there being a PTOPIC (taking "'biological sex' is just another term for 'sex'" to be a PTOPIC argument).

Google Scholar showing that most instances of the term "sex" was in reference to biological sex was brought up as an argument for there being a PTOPIC, with counterarguments being that it also showed the common name for sexual intercourse being "sex" and that, as a generalist encyclopedia, academic usage is not necessarily more important than layman usage, which is an argument supported by WP:PT1 (..much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. emphasis mine) WhatLinksHere, which had links going to "Sex" that were using the term in a variet of different senses, including biological sex, sexual intercourse, human sexual activity and human sexuality, was used to argue common usage of the term "Sex" is very ambiguous.

Considering the evidence and the relevant guidelines there is no clear strength of argument advantage for either side when it comes to whether or not there is a PTOPIC, and there is certainly not any clear violation of PaGs that prevents the supermajority in favour of there being no PTOPIC from establishing a consensus to that effect.

I'm willing to update the close rationale to include this more in-depth explanation, but I cannot in good faith unilaterally revert this close as I don't believe it was incorrect. If you believe it was incorrect then a move review is in order, which you are of course more than welcome to initiate. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 15:47, 11 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have taken it to MR. Srnec (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Got it, thanks for letting me know. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 00:27, 12 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Generally the discussion was at a limbo as before today it had 2 people supporting it and 2 against it, but then another person had came today to support moving the page, will the page still be able to be moved despite it being beyond weeks from its deadline due to the limbo or will it stay the same as it is? Se7enand5 (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I had missed that article ending up in the backlog, there's been a high workload with few closers at RM in the past week or so. I will go take a look, but generally speaking a reply is a reply no matter how long a discussion has been open or been in the backlog, and counts towards consensus just like any other. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 22:00, 11 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hard close as is due to the fact there hasn't been a solid response to the WP:COMMONNAME argument, which isn't something that can be overruled by a numerical advantage alone, (see WP:NOTAVOTE) and a no consensus is going to leave a bunch of procedural questions about what title should be defaulted to. I'm just going to go ahead and join the discussion to try to break the stalemate, but that means that someone else will have to close it. Also, as the nominator you count as a vote so it was 3-2 before and 4-2 as it currently stands, prior to me joining the discussion. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 22:13, 11 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ü, links pointing to the disambiguation pages Digraph and Umlaut were added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 22 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Issac I Navarro (talk) wishes you peace!

Spread peace and goodwill by adding {{subst:WikiPeace}} to other's talk pages with a friendly message.

Thank you for your edits on the RfC at Talk:Clop (erotic fan art). I agree that "People have to actually want to read our encyclopedia for it to be able to provide encyclopedic value to them." The subject is very surprising, to say the least and I appreciated the analysis you gave. Issac I Navarro (talk) 01:38, 26 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Jaw on the floor that you've only really been at this for six months – you've accomplished a ton and more than got the hang of the tools of the trade, even in some of the most technically and socially fraught areas. Please keep it up!! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:09, 23 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Cheers leeky! Indeed, I'm fresher than I might seem! It's a familiar story: I enjoyed reading Wikipedia articles for years, started to do minor fixes to articles I read and slowly started to branch out.. I enjoy it, and the people are generally nice, so you can expect to keep seeing my name popping up! ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 22:17, 23 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

If you feel like commenting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:22, 26 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the heads-up. Funny how that goes. I admit, I didn't look into the page history and just assumed someone had made the article and then the company came by trying to change its title. I didn't consider the possibility that the company lacked notability, although thinking about it I didn't find much while looking them up. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 10:25, 26 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm not sure what's happened with this GAN, whether you're busy, waiting for something, or what? Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Busy, not your fault. Many things came up at once, trying to get through all the stuff I'm trying to do. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 17:41, 27 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

At the discussion about umlaut, you comment that the article Two dots (diacritic) describes usages that are not diacritics. I've reread it and I'm afraid I can't see what you had in mind. Could you clarify, please? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Right, sorry for the lack of clarity: the usage of the two dots in Swedish and Finnish (and I think also Estonian) is not as a diacritic. Ä and Ö are letters in their own right, rather than being A and O with diacritics. For Swedish I believe it's a result of the likeness of the German umlauts being borrowed to represent similar sounds (similar situation with Å, which is also not an A with a diacritic).

I don't really think anything has to be removed from the article; it would be fine to just make a section/subsection explaining the diacritic has ceased being a diacritic in some languages. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 18:30, 30 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you are correct, I forgot about Swedish and Finnish. Like ñ in Spanish is not an n with a tilde diacritic. In both cases, IMO (!) the variant is functionally a diacritic but I'm not about to spend hours looking for an RS that says so. So I won't argue the point. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Don't worry about not having a source with you, I get what you mean. The Ä and Ö in Swedish and Finnish certainly are conveying essentially the same semantic information as you would get by adding an umlaut diacritic to an A and an O, and their origins are related to the umlaut. It's just a conventional thing that results in them being considered letters in their own right rather than A and O with diacritics – one of many quirks in this area that results in a bunch of "technically"'s having to be strewn all over the place. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 20:44, 30 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you changed some links of Jet ski to personal watercraft. Personal watercraft was moved to Jet ski, which is what prompted me to create a move request to move "Jet Ski" to Jet Ski (brand). Thanks. Slothwizard (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yeah I just commented on your profile saying "whoops, thanks for fixing it for me" right as you left this comment here. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 20:27, 30 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hey Maltazarian, the third annual Developing Countries WikiContest is now open for submissions. Welcome to the contest! You can now list your work at your submissions page to earn points. We hope that you enjoy participating in this drive to fight Wikipedia's systemic bias. If you haven't done so already, please review the following:

• New to Wikipedia? Many experienced editors are part of this contest and willing to help; feel free to ask questions on the talk page.
• Got open nominations? List them at the review requests sidebar.
• Looking for a topic to work on? Check out suggested articles and eligible reviews.
• Not sure if your article qualifies? See the scoring rules for more information or contact a coordinator.
• Know someone else who might be interested? Sign-ups remain open throughout the contest, so don't hesitate to invite other editors!

On behalf of the coordinators, we hope you enjoy participating and wish you the best of luck! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the contest talk page or ask one of the coordinators: Arconning (talk · contribs), Generalissima (talk · contribs), Magentic Manifestations (talk · contribs), sawyer777 (talk · contribs), or TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs). (To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list.) —TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (events)#NCWWW has grown stale, but more dialogue might be required since out of the five participants only three supported the change. While my own opinion makes that 6–2, it seems necessary to get more editors involved. What would be the appropriate way to do this? Linking to it at Wikipedia talk:Article titles or something else? I also noticed that during the discussion for the previous change to the guideline, a Survey section was made, should I do that as well? Raskuly 🐰 05:42, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

The discussion about the previous change was an RfC, (we are essentially in WP:RFCBEFORE right now, hopefully we can avoid doing one) so just adding a survey section on its own wouldn't do much, but it could help if we clearly decide on an option while making a new section asking people what they think about it. We could do that in combination with getting more input via placing a notice at Wikipedia talk:Article titles as you said. There is also the option of inviting participation at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), but I think we should hold off on that until we see what Wikipedia talk:Article titles input we can get.

So, I think the best move here is to make a new section and put forward a clear proposal for a change. I've worked a bit more on the wording and I've got a proposal to put forward for discussion, which I will go ahead and do now, so that should act as a convenient opportunity to invite others to the discussion. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 17:27, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

We've been the only two participants at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (events)#A reworked proposal for an update. Since there has been activity on the thread post-subsection opening and no one else has said anything in the subsection other than us, is it about time to move on to the next step? Raskuly 🐰 05:04, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yes, let me get back to you on that, hopefully later today. I've been doing some other stuff so I've not been able to give this issue enough attention. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 10:05, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Just realized I did not get back to you on that – not ideal. Give me another day and I will move forward with this. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 06:51, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi Maltazarian,

I am asking why you relisted the requested move discussion at [[Talk:2007 Labour Party leadership election (UK)

1. Requested move 26 June 2026]] when all of the votes are against this proposal. There was no reason to relist this discussion except to prolong debate and make us wait longer for an outcome, I think consensus was already clear when you had relisted this discussion, prolonging debate is unacceptable per WP:NOTBUREAU. A similar move request, Talk:2026 Labour Party leadership election#Requested move 25 June 2026 was closed when WP:CONSENSUS was clear and there were strong arguments put on other side of the debate.

Thanks for following up on this. Qwerty123M (talk) 23:08, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

There's one support saying that there might be some better name than both election and contest and one weak oppose, making it kind of a 4-2 but with 2 people suggesting there is more to it than meets the eye, either by suggesting there is a wider argument to be made or by suggesting there might be a better alternative to both election and contest. As a rule of thumb I tend to relist move discussions for clearer consensus if there is no supermajority and they have not received a relisting. This is right on the edge, but I feel the two people suggesting there might be more to discuss made a relist make a lot of sense.

If more people come in and oppose I will close the discussion before another week has passed though.

Oh, and I know about the other move being closed – I closed it. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 07:28, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't know what is up with my signature, I don't understand the process behind making one well. I just tried different things until I got the visual output I wanted. Raskuly 🐰 17:35, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Signatures can be a bit tricky because they can't use transcluded templates (it does tell you to not use them in the settings page, if you are then perhaps this is part of why it says that), but there is an advice page at WP:SIGTUT that lends some help.

Either way, you can get your current visual output by just using the first part of your current signature:

<span style="background-color: orange; color: black;">[[User:Raskuly|'''<span style="color:#FFFFFF;>Raskuly</span>''']] [[User talk:Raskuly|🐰]]</span>

Although I'd recommend::

<span style="background-color: orange;">[[User:Raskuly|'''<span style="color:#FFF;>Raskuly</span>''']] [User talk:Raskuly|🐰]]</span>

As the "color: black" part isn't doing anything and 3 letter hex codes work such that #123 renders as #112233 etc. and using a non-breaking space will prevent the rabbit running off to another line (which even if it doesn't happen for you could happen for others depending on screen size and settings).

Or if you'd perhaps like the margin on the left side of your name to closer match the right side of the rabbit (so Raskuly 🐰 instead of Raskuly 🐰) you can do:

<span style="background-color: orange;">[[User:Raskuly|'''<span style="color:#FFF; margin-left:3px">Raskuly</span>''']] [[User talk:Raskuly|🐰]]</span>

Hope some of this can help out. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 18:55, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much! Raskuly 🐰 18:59, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

The Special Barnstar

I've awarded this barnstar to you because of your dutiful work at WP:RM, your desire to improve Wikipedia by trying to align articles better with project-wide consensus, and also because I really appreciate you going out of your way to help me with my signature. I'm sure many people noticed my janked signature while editing in source (I certainly had), but you helped me fix it. Raskuly 🐰 06:56, 5 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! I'm happy I could help. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 14:52, 5 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi, would you consider reopening Talk:Kulasekaram#Requested move 10 June 2026?

Your close noted 2 to 3 which seems irrelevant in terms of WP:NHC.

Obviously I agree that the page should not be moved, but I think that consensus not to move would be a better outcome and may be possible. Andrewa (talk) 23:22, 5 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sure, a head count isn't everything, but I wouldn't say it's irrelevant, and the second part of the close rationale is key here: "2 to 3 and no evidence going either way, so no consensus going either way." When the head count is close to being split down the middle and there is a lack of tangible policy-and-guideline advantage or evidence for either side, then there can't be said to be a consensus. If you mean that there is evidence or a policy-and-guideline reason that warrants closing with consensus against a move I have to say I'm not really seeing it. The only thing someone mentioned in terms of evidence was the Indian Census, but the same comment said there was no clear consensus among sources for what to use (and the Indian Census isn't the most convincing of sources anyways as it will use official names over common ones). It didn't seem like enough to justify declaring a consensus. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 16:11, 6 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

See also Talk:Kulasekaram#Discussion post closing but best to discuss here IMO. Andrewa (talk) 02:11, 7 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

The winners of the 2026 Core Contest are announced 🎉. A huge turnout that resulted in one of our trickiest deliberation sessions. The judges (Aza24, Femke and Casliber) would like to thank everybody who joined and congratulate the winners!

• First place (and a prize of £120) goes to Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk · contribs) for his dual efforts on Flatbread and Tortilla! One, formerly an unsourced list-like article, and the other, once a poorly sourced and spotty overview, both now number 250+ citations from an impressively academic source pool. We particularly commend the efforts to globalize content, treat the topics comprehensively and thoughtfully select illustrations. Both articles (one now a GA) are of a uniquely high quality amid the often underserved food topics on Wikipedia. Bravo!
• Second place (and a prize of £100) goes to Phlsph7 (talk · contribs), a Core Contest regular who has once again shown a mastery of big topics, with his dual efforts on Agnosticism and Premise—both now GAs (one, with a review by our first place winner!). With immensely thorough sourcing improvements, alongside carefully nuanced text on these often misunderstood topics, both articles are a pleasure to read.
• Third place (and a prize of £80) goes to MCE89 (talk · contribs), whose improvements to the Heard Island and McDonald Islands article have led to a triumphant FA declaration. The incredible balance of detail between human, geographical and flora-fauna elements is a great achievement, and sets a high standard for future island articles.

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list. – Aza24 (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello Maltazarian. I am confused by your closure of this RM. You have closed this as is no consensus, yet moved all the articles anyway. You appear to be saying that this is the status quo because redirects already exist, and therefore they are effectively the PTOPIC. But that doesnt make a lot of sense. Where there is debate over whether there is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or not, that is something that requires discussion and consensus. It cannot be assumed to be the PTOPIC because somebody has created redirects - I am not sure if you are aware of the history of WP:NCAUST, but there have been several RfCs that have also closed without consensus on this issue as there is ambiguity in that guideline about when an article needs to have the state added for disambiguation that ties it back to Primary Topic.

I raised particular concerns and provided considerable evidence regarding Dural which clearly is NOT the primary topic by any measure. Yet your close means this article was moved too despite there being a disambiguation page that would have been a much more appropriate target. If i understand this is because you suggest that we should ignore the case presented and fall back on the status quo - which is a cheap redirect with minimal context in a topic area subject to ongoing dispute? Furthermore, i have concerns the nominator seem mistaken about what PTOPIC actually means - see my comments on their talk page. I reviewed a lot of their undiscussed moves and found many of these claims of PTOPIC (in a lot of cases they argued because a redirect exists, it is PTOPIC) to have no, or a contentious basis. Several of them were unfounded and I opened a number of subsequent RMs - one was found not to be PTOPIC, and the other for Model Farms is still open. I note my reversion of the undiscussed Sylvania Waters move was raised at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#Sylvania Waters (where i have listed a number of articles where PTOPIC was claimed based on redirects, but not supported) and no objections were raised once that the evidence doesnt support the rationale claimed by the nominator, which is the same here!

I urge you to reconsider this close, which in believe should have been procedurally closed as soon as comments indicated support for some of the listings and not others. At the very least, would you please undo your move of Dural, which is very clearly not the primary topic? 21:08, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

If may also add 2 additional points.

• At no point in the discussion did anyone who contributed say they believed that all the listed articles were undisputably PTOPIC. Rather those who supported the move did so on the basis of efficiency, noting that there may be issues and further redirects that would have to be discussed separately if this move occurred. Even taweetha acknowledge that some would better targeting DABs.
• the article Avalon Beach itself was discussed at an RM in April 2025 and the result was to keep it at the stable title of Avalon Beach, New South Wales. So if there is no consensus to move it this time, then wouldn't the status quo be that there is still no consensus to move it? Even if a redirect has existed for 5 years, there previous RM is a more recent indication of existing consensus. Dfadden (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sorry we ended up with an edit conflict so I didn't see this writing the previous message and I felt it was just better to respond to this separately.

• Yes, but there was no consensus on which ones to do that with and people felt too many moves were being suggested at once. So, individual RMs should be made, such as the ones I suggested below. These discussions can be held with the pages at their base names too; the moves do not affect the ability to have those discussions.
• I checked that thread and it was a procedural close, the banner is somewhat misleading in saying "not moved" without clarifying it was not due to a consensus but due to an ongoing RfC that was relevant to the RM.

–Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 22:10, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

You've added one too many tildes when trying to sign, so add three new ones between the timestamp and the comment.

Yes, it's a highly unusual closure. I've been aware of the possibility such a situation could arise before but I haven't seen it in 200+ closes. That said, I considered the close extensively before posting it and I don't see how it could have been closed in any other manner.

Take Dural, as you have mentioned; that wikilink is leading to the same article it has led to for the last 22 years, except for a little over 51 hours back in 2012, when someone tried to change it to target the disambiguation page and was reverted, with the edit summary for the revert being that the Australian place is the PTOPIC. So what could I have done in the close? The status quo is clearly that the Australian place being the PTOPIC.

That said, despite believing that it currently has PTOPIC status, I actually happen to fully agree with you that it shouldn't have that. As I said in my close, there is no prejudice against immediately starting individual RMs challenging the status quo, and I suggest we go ahead and start an RM to move Dural (disambiguation) to Dural.

As for Sylvania Waters, I will note the pager mover did leave Sylvania Waters as a redirect to Sylvania Waters, New South Wales after reverting their technical move, which should only be done if the Australian place has PTOPIC status, suggesting the reversal may be because WP:NCAUST, as you touched on, does allow for an article to have a disambiguation even if they are PTOPIC. I think we should start an RM on that too, which can be formatted as Sylvania Waters (TV series) to Sylvania Waters (or you can make Sylvania Waters (disambiguation) and request it be moved to the base name). –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 22:06, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your insights. There is no need to raise a new RM for Dural as consensus already exists that the suburb is NOT the PTOPIC. I wonder if you were aware that Dural was also not moved at a previous RM here: Talk:Dural#Requested move 8 April 2025? This discussion established that there was no PTOPIC for Dural and as such, there was no consensus to move the article to the target as you have done with your close. Surely, that is a stronger indication of the status quo that an edit summary from 2012? The move you just made actually goes against documented consensus from 2025. I do agree Dural should target Dural (disambiguation) but I don't that we need an RM for that noting there is already agreement that there is no PTOPIC for this term.

As to Avalon Beach, you are correct, that was a procedural close. This occurred because there was an open RfC on how to interpret WP:NCAUST, and because issues were flagged that not all nominated articles appeared to be PTOPIC (depite redirects). The same group of articles was later relisted in a further RM at Talk:Allawah#Requested move 6 August 2025 with the exception of Avalon Beach, Bankstown Airport and Belrose, all which were contested in the initial RM. This appears to be a tacit acknowledgement that these articles needed to be discussed separately to determine their status as PTOPIC, thus there is not a clear consensus that Avalon Beach is PTOPIC. It should not be presumed as so just because a redirect exists.

It is reasons like this that I suggesred a procedural close was the appropriate outcome for the RM. I do not agree that the actions you have taken accurately reflect the status quo, although i do appreciate there is a lot of context you may not have known when you closed it, and why it would seem reasonable. Dfadden (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I was not aware of that RM. I will move Dural back to Dural, New South Wales and turn the base name into a disambiguation page (which should have been done the moment that RM was closed with consensus against it being PTOPIC). Thank you for alerting me to this.

I understand your view that, in the context of other discussions, redirects should not be taken as evidence of a status quo PTOPIC. This is quite the conundrum, as common practice is to regard it as such, although moves like the one above are exceptions. I would suggest that, for any further situations like this you are aware of, where explicit consensus was against something being a PTOPIC, you request a technical move to get the disambiguation page to the base name. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 10:11, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have moved the disambiguation page to the base name Dural and disambiguated the hundred or so links going there (indeed, a lot were meant to go to Duralumin). –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 10:27, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks! I still feel that the most appropriate outcome for the RM should have been a procedural close due to the issues mentioned, but I understand how you arrived at your conclusion (it was a complicated RM). In the vast majority of cases where an Australian place name has a redirect to the disambiguated title, there has never been any discussion as to whether these are actually the PTOPIC that I can find any evidence of. Rather, it seems this has been assumed (often by editors based in Australia) so I would encourage caution around accepting this as evidence it is the PTOPIC to avoid introducing systematic bias (per WP:NWFCTM) - Eg. A Sydney-based editor reading "Dural" might immediately think of the suburb, but an editor who is familiar with metal fabrication anywhere else in the world would think of the alloy and is probably unaware there is even a place by that name... of course, most participants in discussions about an Australian place article are likely to be located in Australia.

In any case, I willing to let it be now that Dural has been rectified and may consider raising additional standalone RMs for Avalon Beach and Millers Point. If I may ask a small favour, can you amend your closing comments to reflect that Dural was the exception and was kept at its current namespace due to a previous consensus there is no PTOPIC? I ask because there is quite a history here and it may help to clarify why certain moves were/were not made if they come up again in future discussions. Thank you again for working through this with me. Dfadden (talk) 11:58, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think i found the reason for those redirects, such as the one you saw on Dural. See: Wikipedia:WikiProject Sydney/Suburbs. This just states If the name is unique then you can add a redirect, e.g. Bondi Beach, which redirects to the article at Bondi Beach, New South Wales. This is an especially good idea if the suburb is well known internationally and locally. I also believe this is in conflict with WP:NCAUST which specifically requires PTOPIC and will raise this conflict on the WP:AUSTRALIA noticeboard. However, it strengthens my belief that the RM close should have been a procedural keep as there is a guideline that explains the why the redirects are there and that they dont necessarily indicate PTOPIC status. Just something you may wish to consider. Thanks! Dfadden (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I’m just alerting you since you kindly relisted the Requested Move I made at Talk:Dangrek Incident as an uninvolved editor yesterday to hopefully gather more input. Hours after you did, an involved editor who opposes the move then requested an uninvolved editor to close it immediately. As the discussion was just relisted, doing so undermines the relisting process. Since you’re familiar with the request, I just wanted to alert you. Can you please clarify if the discussion should continue to run its relisted course? Appreciate you and your time. MoonsMoon (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Please disregard the message above! The editor actually posted in a previous, older thread and I misread the notification. So sorry for any confusion! MoonsMoon (talk) 01:05, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I am the creator of the list of Old World Oases in the Oasis article. I just now saw that you removed the specific wadi names just after I finished fixing red links for oases in Algeria. I was wondering if it is okay if I bring them back? It'll be a bit of work since I have changed the order of the list so I can't simply revert it. I can add them to a separate section like you said, but also the vast majority of those wadis are red links, so perhaps they should just be omitted entirely from the article. What do you think? ಢೠೊೠಃಈ (talk) 01:39, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

It's been a few months since I did that. Looking at the edit history I think I did it because I was thinking it packing the "Typology" section with redlinks, but I don't really mind, so go ahead and do what you feel like is best. I didn't intend on it being hard for someone to revert the change, sorry about that. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 01:51, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

That's alright, I'm not the most active on Wikipedia so it took me a while to see it. I'll get to work on it over the next few months, and I'll probably add it to a new location section. Have a good day! ಢೠೊೠಃಈ (talk) 17:40, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

No, no, consider it done. I have no desire to see an editor who does not spend as much time as me editing having to dedicate months to something like that. I will take care of it. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 07:11, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi Maltazarian

Would you mind relisting the above RM please?

I don't think the decision to move was correct; he is generally called "Alf-Inge Haaland" (or "Alf Inge Haaland") in English sources, by a reasonably large majority. See ngrams for example, and recent articles in the BBC, the Guardian, the Telegraph etc. It seems like the main argument used in the RM was that he officially changed his name, but in general the WP:COMMONNAME policy would override that, and we should remain with the name that's most recognizable to English readers. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:57, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

After thinking about it I do think this is a valid request. My mind is drawn to WP:IMR, which gives [Closer] was unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the page move discussion: [identify information here] and the discussion should be reopened and relisted. as a valid reason to challenge a close, which obviously means it's acceptable for a closer to reopen on that basis too, even though we technically don't have a page explicitly saying that (or, at least, I can't find it). I was unaware of these RS as they were not discussed in the RM, and in my view they constitute significant additional information, so I will be reopening the RM. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 10:29, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks! And yes, I do agree that's a valid reason. Personally I generally grant most requests for a relist from new participants if the RM hasn't already had one and there are plausible reasons... relists are cheap and it's usually worth an extra week to make sure the consensus is the correct one. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:35, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hey there, I clicked rollback on accident. No intention to do vandalism. I apologize for any wrong action. Beyoncé and Rihanna's navy 🐝🪖 16:22, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yeah I suspected as much, don't worry about it. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 17:07, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Beyoncé and Rihanna's navy 🐝🪖 17:12, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hey, it does not seem like the article was moved after the closing, unless I'm going crazy or there is some unusual cache issue happening. Raskuly 🐰 19:25, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

You are correct. I cannot move it because an administrator set a move protection on it in 2018 and administrators do not tend to actually review whether or not the pages under move protection warrant continuing to have it.

Despite the fact that page movers are users supposedly trusted to not screw things up moving pages, it has been decided that there should be only one level of move protection and that it should apply to page movers just like any other user. So we page movers have to send those pages to WP:RM/TR and just wait for an administrator to feel like checking in on that page. I think you can tell what my personal opinion on this is. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 19:51, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Raskuly I made a fuss about it to admins in a chat and got the move fast-tracked for you. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 19:58, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I just opened Wikipedia's Discord and scrolled up a bit in the #english-wikipedia channel and saw. I checked that channel because when I opened the Discord server I was on that channel and you had just sent a message in the channel. Raskuly 🐰 20:12, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

The 2026 Developing Countries WikiContest has been running for a month now, so let's check in with the competition so far!

As of the time of writing, our top contestants are:

1. Vanderwaalforces (submissions) ahead of the pack with 715 points, with two FAs and many GAs on the monarchs of the Kingdom of Benin;
2. Simongraham (submissions) with 291 points, mostly with GAs on jumping spiders, alongside various GAN and FAC reviews;
3. Jaguarnik (submissions) with 240 points, mostly from an FA on the 1945 film Ivan the Terrible;
4. Grnrchst (submissions) with 215 points, mostly from GAs on anarchist history in various countries, alongside many GA reviews, and;
6. Vestrian24Bio (submissions) tied for 4th with 215 points, with an FL and four GAs on Indian cricket!

These competitors are in the lead, but if past experience is any indication, big shake-ups might still await us in the contest. If you're looking for a way to boost your position, we got a table of review requests from fellow participants—you can rack up a lot of points through reviews, and it might just convince others to review your own nominations! You can also look through the eligible reviews page to find other articles to review, with highlights for articles eligible for the 1.5× multiplier. The coordinators would like to thank Jaguarnik (submissions) for his work to keep this page up to date.

Thank you so much for all your work in the contest so far, dear participants, and keep on the good fight against systemic bias on our wiki! Have any questions? Leave a message on the contest talk page or send it to one of our wonderful coordinators: Arconning (talk · contribs), Generalissima (talk · contribs), Magentic Manifestations (talk · contribs), sawyer777 (talk · contribs), and TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs). (To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list. Sent via MediaWiki message delivery.) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:25, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page World Obstacle, 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 a title to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help). Below are the references causing this error:

• • World Obstacle https://worldobstacle.org. Retrieved 2 August 2026. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (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) 18:15, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

The disambiguation page is now a redirect to the video game article whereas it should have shown all the related BLP pages per recent RM. Can you check? Sddarealone (talk) 04:37, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hmm. The RM consensus didn't really address it. I suppose it could be a DAB to the video game and surname, but it really more seems like an unnecessary page. I should have moved without leaving a redirect. I guess I will just turn it into a different redirect. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 09:11, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, you closed the discussion but didn't perform the move?. In solidarity, Destinyokhiria _{(talk / cont)} 08:39, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

oh right –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 09:09, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've perform the move already, was just letting you know. In solidarity, Destinyokhiria _{(talk / cont)} 09:14, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. The reason I didn't do it was because I just forgot I have to manually move after manually closing. Usually Move+ takes care of it all but it wasn't working. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 09:17, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Still facing the same issue will Move+ here's the template for the "uncontested request with minimal participation", I copied it in my clipboard for a situation where Move+ stopped working.

Moved as an uncontested request with minimal participation. If there is any objection within a reasonable time frame, please ask me to reopen the discussion; if I am not available, please ask at the technical requests page. In solidarity, Destinyokhiria _{(talk / cont)} 09:44, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, but it was for some reason only that RM that Move+ refused to open up the dialogue box for closing on. It's happened with a few discussions before, I don't know what causes it. I could ask BilledMammal (the creator) about it.

Thanks again for the help. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 09:55, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi! It seems the same issue may have occurred with the requested move at the Talk:Sanjay Gandhi Biological Park#Requested move 1 August 2026 as well.  Ivecos (t) 07:21, 9 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Ivecos  Done In solidarity, Destinyokhiria _{(talk / cont)} 07:27, 9 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Wait what? No, that close message was in fact not manually added, I selected that using Move+. That page should have been moved. Something else went wrong there, not entirely sure what. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 08:26, 9 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have also experienced something like this, anyway I perform the move for you. In solidarity, Destinyokhiria _{(talk / cont)} 08:28, 9 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I wanted to quickly reach out about the proposed move of Debbie A. Clary to Debbie Clary. I saw in the move discussion that the page was to be moved, but I don't believe it has happened yet. I haven't requested a ton of moves and wasn't sure if the delay was to allow for any objections, but wanted to check in and ask about it. I appreciate it -- thanks! PA Uploader (talk) 12:56, 9 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

The page has been moved now. This is not the first time this has happened (see above discussion). The cause isn't clear to me. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 13:21, 9 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

You're invited to join the Organized Labour community editing event, a cross-wiki event taking place throughout September 2026!

The campaign brings together Wikimedians interested in improving coverage of organised labour, workers, trade unions, and labour history. We have confirmed collaborations with Wikipedia language editions in English, Dutch, Persian, Serbo-Croatian and French. If you want to add other language editions or other wiki projects you are strongly encouraged to do so! This event spans geography and languages!

This is a one-time invitation. You're receiving it because you previously signed a petition related to Wiki Workers United (WWU). We hope you'll join us!

Regards ~ Shushugah (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have intended to create a disambiguation page at Santhosh Kumar after moving the hacker article to Santhosh Kumar (hacker), but you have moved the article back to the base title before I was going to create the disambiguation page. Now, I have disambiguated the hacker article's title again and created a disambiguation page at the base title, so please do not revert my move again. GTrang (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I was looking at the implementation earlier, pretty sure I can sort it out. Primefac (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Oh, neat, I will remove the technical request I just submitted as you left this comment. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 16:57, 30 August 2026 (UTC)Reply