User talk:Born2cycle

Jump to navigation Jump to search


Coherent reply policy

If I put a message on your talk page, I will be watching that page for a reply. If you leave a message here, I will reply here, unless you request otherwise.

Thanksies.[edit]

White-breasted nuthatch silhouette (33747)2.jpg Stranger's Recognition
I don't know you; I'm nobody, and we've never met, and I have no grasp of etiquette in this unintuitive hell, but there's a button here that says I can send my regards, and a good part of me says you deserve some appreciation. Sunberreiy (talk) 11:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[]

Chinese whispers/Telephone[edit]

Why don't you think that the Chinese whispers move shouldn't have been reverted? Surely the oppose side made the stronger case to keep it at this title namely that "Chinese whispers" is 30% more common that the other 2 names combined in NGrams and even if it wasn't WP:NATURAL is an effective tie breaker. Applying the WP:TITLECHANGES and the yogurt principle, firstly is there a good reason to change this controversial title? No there isn't as per the evidence presented. Secondly if the article was at "Telephone (game)" already would there be a reason to change it? Yes there would again because the evidence and ATDAB support "Chinese whispers". Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[]

  • It’s controversial variant issue therefore should go back to original variant, period. —В²C 20:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[]
    Its a controversial variant issue but the move seems to have been in accordance with our PAGs at least today though if such a move was desired today it would probably need to go through RM. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[]
    It shouldn’t even have to go through RM. It’s a controversial variant issue therefore the original variant should be restored. Period. ENGVAR 101. —В²C 23:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[]
    Not when the PAGs indicate the modified name is more favourable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[]
    Only if that’s settled by clear consensus. When you have RMs reversed by move reviews it’s clearly not what you have. —В²C 00:51, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[]
    Well there was no local consensus for the move but when we consider community consensus (per you're essays) we would be able to see that community WP:CONSENSUS favours keeping it at "Chinese whispers" even if local consensus was otherwise like with Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 30#Closers: Determining CONSENSUS rather than "consensus". Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2021 (
    I disagree with your interpretation of community consensus. But that doesn’t matter, so I won’t go into the reasons. What matters is that there is no local consensus that agreed with your interpretation. —В²C 03:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[]
    Local consensus is not what matters its community consensus per you're essay. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[]
    In general, yes, but not in a situation where there is no consensus on what community consensus is. —В²C 00:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[]
    Are you trying to say that there needs to be community consensus on what the exception to RETAIN is? if so you should probably suggest that at the RFC but otherwise the guideline and AT are clear enough on this. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[]
    No. There’s no exception here. Per RETAIN, “When no English variety has been established and discussion does not resolve the issue, use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety.” Very simple. I suppose there is disagreement on whether an English variety has been established there, but that too shows lack of establishment in and of itself. —В²C 15:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[]
    Well even ignoring what the titling policy says I think we can reasonably say that 14 years does mean that this variety has been established. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[]
    That was the argument at Yoghurt. But 14 years of disagreement does not establish establishment. That said I just double checked the history. Initial version is a stub. Second version uses British English spelling. So that is the original variety. And that’s what should be argued if this ever comes up again. —В²C 18:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[]

Talk:Joe#Requested move 20 July 2021[edit]

While the nomination and BD2412 were probably arguing like me that the name is primary by long-term significance given that there was a clear consensus that it wasn't primary by usage and that everyone opposed the move shouldn't the discussion have been "not moved" instead of "No consensus to move"? Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[]

Yeah. Good point. —В²C 17:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[]

Closed requested move on Talk:United Kingdom Space Command prematurely?[edit]

There were a couple of points that are unanswered, so perhaps it was premature to close the discussion here. Specifically:

  • There is no evidence to suggest the agency is actually called "United Kingdom ...", and
  • There are loads of other pages with UK in the title, a handful of the dozens of the examples were given.

And uncertain if the other points were comprehensively addressed. Would it be possible to re-open the discussion? Chumpih. (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Sure.  Done. —В²C 21:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[]
That's most gracious. Chumpih. (talk) 21:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Admin[edit]

Seemed to be an admin move - that's all. Could a non admin do? Anyway now no issue. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[]