User talk:Mellohi!

Category:18th-century Polish–Lithuanian people by occupation

Hi, you just closed the discussion I started in WP:MR. Can you tell me what I should now? User:bibliomaniac15 recommended starting a WP:CFD discussion, but your rationale seems to be different. It will be a third discussion on this topic, and I just want it to be conclusive this time. Marcelus (talk) 07:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Member of Provincial Parliament merger

Hi Mellohi! The request you made at WP:PAM isn't technically a merger request, because you're asking to merge them to a disambiguation page, which should only be a simple list of similarly-named terms, not full of article text. What you should probably ask for is that Member of Provincial Parliament (Canada) is merged into Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and Member of Provincial Parliament (Western Cape) into Western Cape Provincial Parliament. So I'll close the current request, and it should be submitted as two separate ones as I suggest above. Thanks. Richard3120 (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@Richard3120: I believe we are in gross miscommunication. My intent was to merge the the Western Cape article with the Canadian article to make a general page about the term MPP, and then outright replace the disambiguation page with the merged article. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I see, my apologies. Well, given that the one for the Western Cape is basically nothing more than one line taken from the Western Cape Parliament's website, I do wonder if there's anything worth merging there, and whether it's just easier to redirect that article and then keep the others as they are. But I'll reinstate the request and see what other editors think. Richard3120 (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2022‎ (UTC)

I've closed it, as you suggested – clearly your original proposal as stated was going nowhere. Yes, I think I would start by suggesting or boldly merging Member of Provincial Parliament (Western Cape) first, then what's left would then be a move request (not a merge) at WP:RM for Member of Provincial Parliament (Canada) to be moved to Member of Provincial Parliament. But as others have suggested, the original list could be expanded, so the move request then becomes moot. Richard3120 (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Breton language

When you added a {{disputed}} tag to Breton language, you did not provide an adequately detailed explanation in the edit summary or on the talk page. "V2 word order" tells us nothing. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03: I was misusing the template as a section expansion reminder, so I'll remove the template when I come back to the page for a little expansion. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

In that case, I will leave the tag up, but replace it with an {{Expand section}} tag. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Vibras pagemove

Hello Mellohi!, I have moved Vibras (album) to Vibras following your request. I've checked the urgent things, and per WP:RMNAC I'll leave the remaining tidying up to you as the closer. Please don't hesitate to let me know if you need any further assistance. Thanks, --Jack Frost (talk) 11:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

• @Jack Frost: No worries, you don't need to ping me whenever you carry out one of my technical requests. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 11:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Non-free song sample close

Hi. Thanks for closing the discussion, but I fear the closing statement leaves a lot up in the air. It's a very complicated issue that -- in order for it to be helpful -- needs some careful explanation of the different dimensions of the arguments. The only section really worth diving into is the "without commentary" section, because "with commentary" is the status quo and uncontroversial. That's why less than half of the RfC participants even bothered to write anything there. Your closing statement made it seem like we were deciding between the two, and that there was any opposition at all to "without commentary" made the "decision" easier, but that's not at all what the RfC was doing, and none of this should be based on a headcount (which was, incidentally, 62% support/38% opposed). One of the biggest issues is in the very nature of the questions: articles about songs contain "commentary" about songs, and the RfC had a lot of people throwing out different interpretations of what "commentary" means that would need to be resolved. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:04, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: I have greatly amended my close reason since. How is it now? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for revisiting/clarifying. It's a tricky one, for sure. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 11:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

First Japanese Embassy to Europe

Hi Mellohi, even though you agreed with my position at Talk:First Japanese Embassy to Europe (1862), I would almost always advise against !voting and relisting in the same move discussion. It appears this is not explicitly forbidden as a supervote at WP:RMRELIST at the moment, but in a case like this one the relist itself is probably unnecessary. With the discussion already in the backlog and open for a month, it's likely that before long an uninvolved editor would either decide to relist it or go ahead and close the discussion. Best, Dekimasuよ! 02:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi again, at Talk:Səlahət Ağayev you wrote that "redirects make the usability problem moot anyhow." I am wondering why you believe this to be the case. (I would have replied there, but you closed the discussion already.) Since the special character is now used throughout the article as well, it seems that anyone who does not know how to use the special character will be unable to read it normally. We do not, for example, use "Москва" or "北京" as article titles with redirects from Moscow and Beijing and claim that redirects make the usability problem moot. Dekimasuよ! 01:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Dekimasu: Your comparisons to Moscow and Beijing are faulty comparisons, because they involve the extra complication of romanizations. Contrary to your argument, Azeri is natively written in the Latin alphabet and just happens to use non-ASCII characters like ə in its orthography. I see no difference between using ə when appropriate in the names of Azeri persons and using diacritics and other non-ASCII characters to spell out the names of French, Turkish, or Icelandic persons as long as sources don't overwhelmingly prefer an anglicized spelling (and the RM noted multiple sources that did not anglicize the ə). — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

(ec) I was attempting to make a point about transliteration, rather than romanization. English users not familiar with diacritics will likely ignore them and read é as e or ō as o, ğ as g, even when those assumptions are faulty; I don't think that's a great solution, but WP:DIACRITICS is agnostic on the matter and that is generally how transliteration works (systematic mapping of one character onto another). However, when coming across letters that are never used in English at all, including ə, they cannot be read by such users, much like the case of Cyrillic. (Do you expect unfamiliar readers to gloss the letter as e?) This distinction is actually noted at Latin-script alphabet#Letter inventory, which distinguishes between "letters with diacritics" and "new letter forms (e.g. ⟨Ə ə⟩ in Azerbaijani alphabet)". Thus a step of transliteration may be warranted whether or not the requested title is in a Latin alphabet. I don't really take issue with you expressing your opinion that redirects are sufficient, but it is frustrating to see you also mark the discussion as resolved on the basis of that opinion 50 minutes after you expressed it, apparently resulting in the creation of a greater number of similar requests. I understand that you don't see a difference between using diacritics and ə; I don't see a difference between ə and 投稿 because both are illegible for many users. Dekimasuよ! 07:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

It appears there are five new RMs requesting the same sort of change, so I will try to follow up there if I have enough time. Dekimasuよ! 04:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Stephens Island move

Kia ora! Just wanted to stop by and clarify why you didn't opt to move the page Stephens Island (New Zealand) to Stephens Island / Takapourewa, given that nearly all the users who engaged in that discussion found that to be a more suitable title? Turnagra (talk) 09:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Disregard this - saw your reply on the talk page itself! Thank you for being willing to wade into the dual name discussions and to close moves around it, I know they can be a bit daunting at times! Turnagra (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Three_Mile_Island#Requested_move_6_June_2022

Hi, just querying your close at the above page. The discussion appears very confused, as some editors are suggesting changing the primary topic entirely, and others are suggesting moving back to having it be a primary redirect to the generating station. It seems to me that in this scenario, with two competing topics and no consensus for either in the RM, having the disambiguation page at the base name is the correct outcome and that it should not be moved. Certainly I oppose the move and would retain the dab page myself if I could vote in this discussion. Please could you reconsider your close? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Point taken. Feel free to remove that from Technical requests, if you haven't done so already. Will instead relist and add a comment advising to focus on which topic is primary. Also, don't be afraid to cast an oppose after I reopen it, as you've expressed your opposition here. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2023 Nigerian general election#Requested move 1 June 2022

Hi, asking about your close decision on the above discussion. Users opposed to the change have steadfastly refused to engage in discussion twice now with the clear intent of stalling so their unilateral status quo is kept. I have made direct arguments on why the current title is unfitting without any response so could you reopen the move or at least direct me to a place where users will actually discuss in good faith? Watercheetah99 (talk) 04:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, Mellohi!. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Primefac (talk) 12:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Declining WP:RM/TR requests

Hi there, if you're declining requests at WP:RM/TR due to not providing sources it's typically better practice to contest with a comment to give the requestor a chance to provide a source before removing them. Sometimes comments can get lost in the edit summaries. Thanks. :) -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@Kj cheetham: Sorry for failing to do that! Indeed I would remind them, but given how IPs work (i.e. dynamic IPs), I was unsure if such a message would ever reach its target. But I'll restore the request under "Contested". — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Mellohi! Not to worry! Sometimes IPs come back, sometimes other editor contribute with further info. I personally tend to give them a day. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Moving pages without closing RM

San Felipe, Venezuela

I closed the RM, and when I performed a round-robin page move, they were already moved/swapped by you. So my moves most possibly took the page back to their original position. San Felipe, Yaracuy, and San Felipe, Venezuela. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Yeah, we had an edit conflict. It's fixed now. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

lol. We had edit conflict again, here. Old message: I see you have fixed the mess. Thank you :-)

For future reference, kindly do dont perform the page moves before closing the RM. See you around :-) —usernamekiran (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Actually I was trying to close the RM first before swapping, but you edit conflicted with me during that too! — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the Indus Valley Civilisation

Similar problem on Indus Valley Civilisation? You closed it but didn't move the page, and one of the arguers did a different move, without the talk page. I undid that. Could you do the indicated move please? Dicklyon (talk) 02:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: I actually submitted it to WP:Requested moves/Technical requests, where it is still waiting, because I needed an admin to override the talk page's move protection. It might be a long while, as the main admin dealing with RMs (Amakuru) took a side in the RM so he won't move it himself. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

OK, I'll note that there. Dicklyon (talk) 02:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Move review

Hello, I shall be filing a move review of your page move Indus Valley Civilisation to Indus Valley civilisation. Per WP:MRV, step one, which states: "On the closer's talk page, you can probably resolve the matter much more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full, formal move review may not be needed." I am making sure that you have not had any second thoughts and that there has been no mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding in how I have interpreted the page move above. Please confirm. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Just start the review. We fundamentally, and immovably, disagree about closing criteria, with our rationales already argued explicitly in the RM itself. I don't think a conversation here will get either of us to change our minds. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Good. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

ANI close

Can you undo your closure at ANI? There are problems with the reported editor relevant to the topic of the thread and they need to be documented there. Note that I was watching this thread and reverting sock edits there earlier.[1] Abhishek0831996 (talk) 07:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

What I gleaned from that section was that Venkat implemented his proposal before getting its RFC closed properly, causing confusion which I resolved by closing the RFC. I believe that should be enough to de-escalate the situation. To me, de-escalation is more productive than artificially keeping it open (especially by bumping it every single day) just because an admin hadn't punished Venkat yet. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

No problem. I would instead start the thread below the existing one. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 08:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I've moved your new thread to the bottom of ANI because it is a separate issue to the mass move problem. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Jack Parsons

Hi there, I've done your requested moves on WP:RMT, but wanted to note there was no need for an admin to implement them. It was just a double page swap and slightly more complex WP:POSTMOVE cleanup required. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Move review for Indus Valley civilisation

An editor has asked for a Move review of Indus Valley civilisation. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:NAC at Talk:Enceladus

Hi, if possible I'd like the closure of the discussion to be reversed. I was shocked that a discussion with almost as many Support !votes as Opposes would result in an obvious Oppose verdict, and there is no apparent reason for an early close that I can tell given such a close discussion - the closure seems less like a summation of all arguments and more like a WP:SUPERVOTE. An admin might come to the same conclusion, but I'd prefer an actual admin's decision on the matter - in my opinion, the Oppose voters didn't argue on policy and I fail to see how the moon has more longterm significance. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll admit that the closure reason should be rewritten because of inaccuracy, but I still stand by closing to not move the pages. It was more of your side's arguments shooting themselves in the foot than anything. On the long term significance front, it wasn't more of proving that the moon was primary but whether the giant has vastly bigger long term significance than the moon; on this point no consensus seems to be reachable any time soon. This leaves the usage side of the debate, which seems to favour the opposers. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it is a good close. There was no evidence provided that the giant had greater long-term significance. Someone said the page should be moved because the giant is older than the moon, which is quite funny but not a great argument. Vpab15 (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Regarding move at 'History of Jews in Kingston upon Hull'

Hi, I noticed that you closed the RM that I initiated. Is it safe for me to move pages that say 'History of the Jews' to 'History of Jews' without an RM, or should such process be initiated? Considering that this would involve roughly 250-300 pages, I thought it best to check with someone. JML1148 (talk) 10:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@JML1148: Hundreds of pages is an extremely large number to handle through covering all of them in RMs. There's an ongoing series of like dozens of requested moves to remove dual names from enormous swaths of New Zealand place name article titles, and the effort is still trucking along 8 months later.

But yeah, I don't think the consensus for just the Kingston-upon-Hull page is enough to move every single page about populations of Jews in specific places without further discussion. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Wimbledon

Hi there. Regarding your close of this requested move, could you please elaborate on how you found consensus for the tennis tournament as the primary topic when that claim was contested more than it was supported and no actual evidence was presented (only assertions, and evidence that Wimbledon is the COMMONNAME of the tennis tournament - which is totally irrelevant in determining the PRIMARYTOPIC)? Thanks. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

A standard pageviews argument was presented by the nominator @Natg 19 later in the discussion. The tournament got 16x the pageviews of the district, while Boston, MA has 12x that of the English place it was named after (hence me bringing it up in the closing rationale). — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 13:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

The London district has a much longer history, so it has arguably greater long-term significance. Not that it should be the primary topic. But all things considered, I'd say the status quo was correct and there is no primary topic. Compare with Chelsea, another dab page with many similarities, with the football team getting most views. Also, it is true that a RM discussion is not a vote, and the focus should be on the quality of the arguments rather than the number. But cases are rarely black and white. When there are good arguments from both sides, it is important to consider what option the majority of editors support. Vpab15 (talk) 13:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but that single comment is plainly not good enough to suggest there is consensus for such a move. It should also have been obvious that the pageviews presented only compared against a single possible target and ignored all others (e.g. the football clubs), and so didn't actually support the argument being made; by simply adding FC and AFC, and excluding the June/July spike it's clear that the tennis tournament accounts for substantially fewer than half the total pageviews for most of the year. As such, I request you revert the subsequent moves, and amend your close or reopen and allow someone else to close. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Wjemather: Regardless, the rename of the Championships themselves to Wimbledon Championships seems uncontroversial, so I will only revert the disambiguation page swap and amend that issue to no consensus, but will not revert the Championships move. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree, there was consensus for the move of the tennis tournament (apologies for not being clear on that). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for amending you're close, I was going to make the same comment that while not a vote it seems that the majority 10 v 5 did not feel that the championships was primary especially by long-term significance for just "Wimbledon". Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I have to disagree that there was any consensus to move the tennis tournament either. Of the 10 people opposing the moves, only three mentioned some support of moving the tournament article to "Wimbledon Championships". That's not a clear consensus in favor of move. The only clear consensus was not to move anything. Therefore the moves should be reverted entirely and the closure amended to reflect the actual consensus.Tvx1 22:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I am taking into account the fact that people supporting or okaying "Wimbledon Championships" spanned a wide variety of opinions in the RM. In addition to the three opposers who explicitly voiced their support for it, a neutral participant and a supporter of the nominator also explicitly supported it, in addition to a supporter of "Wimbledon (tennis)" who came onto this very talk page to approve of my move to "Wimbledon Championships". — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

FFD closures

Hi, I did not forget to close this FFD. AnomieBOT goes around to close these discussions within an hour or two after a file is deleted, so manual edits are not required when the result is "delete". ✗plicit 03:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@Explicit: Oh, sorry. Didn't know FfD uses bots to close deletions; I was more used to other XfD places where deleters also typically close the discussion. Amending closure statement accordingly. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:56, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Further clarification request (on Vukovar-Syrmia move)

Hello! Earlier today I saw your move decision on the Vukovar-Syrmia request. Needless to say, it's not what I was hoping for, but that being said and done I wanted to ask for additional clarification on the specific issue I underlined in the discussion which was not at all addressed in the end. Related to minority communities in Vukovar-Syrmia, I wanted to ask how appropriate it is to continue the usage of the more neutral old version in those specific articles as an redirect to the main article. The principle of neutral compromise is already acknowledged in the Syrmia title. I would like to know if now the official position of the project is to impose the exclusive usage of Croatian version of the new title in articles related to minority communities (in this case I would like it to be explicit and citable) or it is legitimate to use the old version in specific set of topics/ locations? This remained completely unaddressed in your decision so I would really appreciate some further clarification. Best regards. MirkoS18 (talk) 11:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)