Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hey there, I think we both tried to do the same round-robin page move at the same time. See S. M. Marikkar. Should I fix it, or will you? Toadspike [Talk] 17:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

tldr; the article now redirects to what was supposed to be the new title. The new title is a redirect to itself. So the article has been vaporized and we have two nonsensical redirects. Sorry for this mess. Toadspike [Talk] 17:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Toadspike: ooh good grief, that's a silly mix-up, apologies for my part in that - we crashed right into each other! I think it's because I was busy checking the target history while you were moving the page, then I ended up moving the redirect right over the top of the article. HOpefully all sorted now anyway. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for cleaning up the mess! I knew my first round-robin move was gonna go wrong somehow... Toadspike [Talk] 18:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Toadspike: He he, not to worry. I didn't realise that was your first one! I'm sure they'll go smoothly in the future, you did the right process anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you moving pages back that I had moved as per WP:CONSISTENT? The lists of international trips by presidents I moved were all in line with naming convention. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 03:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemant Dabral: what naming convention is that? The moves you had made did not look uncontroversial to me - particularly changing the commonly used term "state visit" to be "international trip" doesn't seem in line with our usual naming conventions. Please start a WP:RM discussion if you wish to proceed with those moves. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are more articles titled "international trips", it has more search probability and to keep all lists in consistency this title should be used. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 11:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hemant Dabral: clearly we need to iron out the nomenclature here, but that should be done through an RM if you wish to pursue it. If some articles have a bad title the solution isn't to move even more of them to have a bad title. "International trips" doesn't sound like encyclopedic tone, and also would potentially include holidays and suchlike which I don't think is the intention. "International visits" or "state visits" would be preferable.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not some articles that have the title "international trips", all of them are tilted that way except the one related to Nicola Sturgeon. And six others titled "state visit". There are about 100 articles titled "international presidential trips" and about 60 articles titled "international prime ministerial trips". Are we going to move all these back to "visits" or is it more practical to move these seven articles to "trips"? That's the reason I made the move, otherwise I wouldn't have done that. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 15:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemant Dabral: I understand what you're saying, but you'd still need to explain to me why the word "trip" is the best choice here. I'm not here to implement the most "practical" solution, I'm here to build an encyclopedia which is the best it can be for our readers, and that means using the correct names for things according to our article titling policy. That may also mean moving other titles to be better as well. Consistency is a good aim to have if the thing you're making consistent is a good thing, but otherwise it isn't. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Amakuru. Do you think Lipid bilayer would be a good fit for File:Phospholipids aqueous solution structures.svg? Seems like it covers every structure and has several mentions of the bilayer (ofc), liposomes, and of micelles. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 16:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Cowboygilbert:... I'm actually slightly puzzled about this, because I literally started writing a POTD entry using that very article shortly before I filed the pic as unused, but then backed out because I thought the article Lipid bilayer was only covering one of the three things in the pic (since the bottom part of the diagram is explicitly labelled as "bilayer sheet". But you're absolutely right - it does cover the micelles and liposomes too, not sure how I missed that, and it's a GA too so a perfect choice for a POTD blurb. Feel free to revive it now if you like, otherwise I will do so in the next few days. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru, All good, . I'll probably construct something but I have been focusing mainly on media for my last couple schedules. Thank you! Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 16:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]