Cremastra

Perspiration discussion

Hey Cremastra,

You recently closed the discussion about whether the current article of perspiration should retain its title or be moved to 'sweat'. You closed the discussion with 'no consensus', which I respectfully disagree with. When counting everyone, including those who didn't directly choose a side, the result was evenly split at 50/50. However, WP:RMCI requires an evaluation of the arguments, so let's briefly review them: The opposers stated that they prefer one term to describes both the fluid and the process, and they rejected 'sweat' as too ambiguous, because it can also have several meanings based on its context. They also felt that 'perspiration' sounded more encyclopedic in line with WP:TONE to them. On the other hand, the supporters referred WP:COMMONNAME and WP:MEDTITLE, backed by Google Ngram, and argued for specifying the article either to the fluid or the process and not both at the same time, and aligning it with other articles that bear similar titles like 'sweat gland' and 'night sweats'. The deciding point is in my opinion the more personal feeling in contrast with clear rules and statistics.

Maybe you can explain your thinking. If you prefer not to change the decision, I would accept that and proceed with a move review unless you have another or better idea. –Tobias (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@Tobiasi0 I'm a little busy right now, but I'll reply to this soon in full. Basically, I feel that the ambiguity argument is actually just as good as the MEDTITLE-based one – note that the article discusses both in the lead: is the fluid secreted by and In humans, sweating is primarily...

However, I am willing to re-think this close, so no need to take it to move review just yet. I'll get back to you in a bit. (If you don't get a further response in the next couple days, you're welcome take it to MR.) Cheers, Cremastra (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I am confident in my close. You are welcome to proceed with a move review so that this can be subject to wider discussion/scrutiny. Cheers, Cremastra (talk) 00:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@Tobiasi0 Pinging again in case they want to take this further? No pressure, just checking in. Cremastra (u — c) 23:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I just started the move review - we'll see where this takes us. –Tobias (talk) 13:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Link for people peering through my archives in future: Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 November Cremastra (u — c) 13:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Elections: Call for Candidates

Administrator Elections | Call for Candidates

The administrator elections process has officially started! Interested editors are encouraged to self-nominate or arrange to be nominated by reviewing the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Call for candidates.

Here is the schedule:

• October 8–14 - Candidate sign-up (we are here)
• October 22–24 - Discussion phase
• October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase

Please note the following:

• The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed.
• Prospective candidates are advised to become familar with the community's expectations of adminstrators, which are much higher than the minimum requirement of having extended confirmed status. This includes reviewing successful and unsuccessful RFAs, reading the essay Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, and possibly requesting an optional poll on their chances of passing.
• The process will have a one week call for candidates phase, a one week pause to set up SecurePoll, a three-day period of public discussion, followed by 7 days of no public discussion and a private vote using SecurePoll.
• The outcomes of this process are identical to making requests for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA or administrator elections.
• Administrator elections are also a valid means of regaining adminship for de-sysopped editors.

Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. A separate user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.

To avoid sending too many messages, this will be the last mass message sent about administrator elections. If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Eltham

Similar to Neath, New South Wales Eltham, New South Wales is missing but I did create Draft:Eltham, New South Wales which we could ask to be restored which may be of interest to you. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Eltham looks good, and I'll see if I can do that next. Thanks. Cremastra (talk) 17:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I've just requested the draft to be undeleted. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, cheers. Cremastra (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Restored. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Neath, New South Wales

Hello! Your submission of Neath, New South Wales 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 at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Edwardx (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 October 2024

• News and notes: One election's end, another election's beginning

• Recent research: "As many as 5%" of new English Wikipedia articles "contain significant AI-generated content", says paper

• In the media: Off to the races! Wikipedia wins!

• Contest: A WikiCup for the Global South

• Traffic report: A scream breaks the still of the night

• Book review: The Editors

• Humour: The Newspaper Editors

• Crossword: Spilled Coffee Mug

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for your interest in the Knowledge Equity Program. I am writing to invite you to outline a Signpost article on the topic, anywhere from your own views in an opinion piece to a neutral presentation of the publicly available info as a journalistic review. Ping me if I can support. I can also talk off-wiki by voice or video if that helps to organize. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I was considering writing a short opinion piece for the Signpost. Thanks for your encouragement. (I'd like to keep things on-wiki though, please). Cheers, Cremastra (u — c) 15:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

October thanks

story · music · places

Thank you for improving articles on October! - My story today is a cantata 300 years old, based on a hymn 200 years old when the cantata was composed, based on a psalm some thousand years old, - so said the 2015 DYK hook. I had forgotten the discussion on the talk. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Elections: Discussion phase

Administrator Elections | Discussion phase

The discussion phase of the October 2024 administrator elections is officially open. As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• October 22–24 - Discussion phase
• October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
• November 1–? - Scrutineering phase

During October 22–24, we will be in the discussion phase. The candidate subpages will open to questions and comments from everyone, in the same style as a request for adminship. You may discuss the candidates at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Discussion phase.

On October 25, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Elections: Voting phase

Administrator Elections | Voting phase

The voting phase of the October 2024 administrator elections has started and continues until 23:59 31st October 2024 UTC. You can participate in the voting phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Voting phase.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
• November 1–? - Scrutineering phase

In the voting phase, the candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies for a vote will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Already voted! :) Cremastra (u — c) 00:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Czech moratorium

Thanks for closing that. May I ask you to add a "Moratorium is in effect until [date]" or somesuch to the closing statement? Counted from end of RM or end of moratorium discussion, whatever you think best. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Sure. I had added that to the FAQ, but it makes sense to state it in the close as well. Cremastra (u — c) 20:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

That I missed, thanks. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the drive!

Welcome, welcome, welcome Cremastra! I'm glad that you are joining the November 2024 drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

Fix a random page lacking sources

Cielquiparle (talk) 12:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 November 2024

• From the editors: Editing Wikipedia should not be a crime

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation shares ANI lawsuit updates; first admin elections appoint eleven sysops; first admin recalls opened; temporary accounts coming soon?

• In the media: An old scrimmage, politics and purported libel

• Special report: Wikipedia editors face litigation, censorship

• Gallery: Why you should take more photos and upload them

• In focus: Questions and answers about the court case

• Traffic report: Twisted tricks or tempting treats?

• Technology report: Wikimedia tech, the Asian News International case, and the ultra-rare BLACKLOCK

• Humour: Man quietly slinks away from talk page argument after realizing his argument dumb, wrong

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Neath, New South Wales

On 9 November 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Neath, New South Wales, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the rural village of Neath, New South Wales, had a population of three Tok Pisin speakers in 2021? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Neath, New South Wales. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Neath, New South Wales), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Times that 600 Wikipedians supported something

A tag has been placed on Category:Times that 600 Wikipedians supported something indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Times that 800 Wikipedians supported something

A tag has been placed on Category:Times that 800 Wikipedians supported something indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Cremastra,

Please stop creating these categories. Within a day, they are obsolete and we just end up tagging them for speedy deletion as empty categories. You at 900 Wikipedians and the highest category is 1000 Wikipedians, please do not make categories for 1100, 1200, 1300, etc. etc. Just let the page stay in 1000 and after a month or two, when the numbers have settled down, you can form a category for whatever the final number is. But you don't have to create a new category every time the number goes up by 100. No one is keeping track of these categories but you and the admins who end up deleting these categories. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Alright, sure. I don't necessarily why the categories need to be immediately deleted– why not just tag them with {{pec}}, since it could fill up again in the future? – but I'll stop creating them.

Thanks, Cremastra ‹ u — c › 13:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

One year!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank-you for the reminder. :) Cremastra ‹ u — c › 12:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)