User talk:RetroCosmos

	; Archives (Index) ;
	2024/January; 2024/February; 2024/March; 2024/November;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Inquiring

Hello @RetroCosmos you left a notification on the article Alien Skin could you highlight for me where I could update to help improve its nuerality Because of the promotional context claimed @1# Wakabenga 16:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I undid your revisions as you, the article creator, removed a promotional tag without discussing with the person who originally placed the tag. Please discuss with that author. If I were to guess:

Alien Skin's music style is Ragga Mu Seketu, which he founded in 2019. might need more attribution as the provided source seems off to me. see wp:NEWSORGNIGERIA
The controversy section reads like boasting.

Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 16:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh thanks let me aswell lookout for more sources and see if I can’t then I’ll have to erase it until more references are available @1# Wakabenga 16:55, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, enjoy editing. Please let me know if you need review or help. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 17:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes would you mind reviewing this article incase there are some errors please inform me on how best I can improve it

Ssentamu Churchill James

Thanks once again @1# Wakabenga 17:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tbh i would question the notability of the president of a student union. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 17:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review incase of anything else I’ll gladly disturb you for I need your guidance

hopefully you won’t mind me and give me little of your time from time to time

once again I’m thankful to your responses @1# Wakabenga 17:27, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning RetroCosmos, I’m back once more…… would you mind reviewing this article Fik Gaza. Incase thete are some Erora that need be corrected Im open to correction. Thank you @1# Wakabenga 11:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine. I'm not going to comment on notability but you could probably expand on the controversy section into a regular section that gives more context behind the issues. for example when he was denied a uk visa, was this part of a world tour? etc Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 18:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes let me expand on that. Thanks once again. Hope you been fine and yes Happy Easter holidays. @1# Wakabenga 19:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request and COI Declaration

talk:Walbrook Institute London#Edit request and COI Declaration Please check those edit request sources again. They appear to fall under WP:NEWSAGG WP:Blog. RCSCott91 (talk) 03:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The edits involved a name change, the sources I would consider to be a regurg press release. In my view there is a very narrow use case for press releases on wiki. A name change happens to be one of them. I do not believe this is against policy. Please let me know if you find an issue with this logic. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 03:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Lennox

Hi, like you, I've been noticing issues of PR style edits on Randy Lennox. Giving you a heads up if you'd like to join me on the COI noticeboard concerning BBiz2257 (talk · contribs) and the pattern of PR style edits among various IPs, dating back several years. tofubird | ✉ 22:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll have a look. To be honest, I forgot about this article. I think you could add a promo tag as it stands. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 19:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closure of Iranian Revolution

I noticed that you closed the discussion about Iranian revolution, but forgot to move it. Please do it. Mast303 (talk) 01:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was a technical move that required certain permissions. I did put in a request that should be actioned by now. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 03:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its done. Mast303 (talk) 03:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On raw numbers alone, whether considering only this discussion or this plus the September discussion I find consensus to move. Consensus is WP:NOTAVOTE and this statement immediately cast doubt on the validity of the close. Consensus is determined by viewing the arguments through the lens of P&G and WP:DISCARDING what is personal opinion or inconsistent with the P&G or evidence. Many of the support votes would assert that this a "proper name" without regard for how WP determines what is a "proper name" and what is capitalised as a title - personal opinions. Others acknowledge the "mixed capitalisation" but would support the move despite the prevailing P&G telling us that mixed capitalisation does not meet the threshold for capitalisation on WP. The past 20 years falls to WP:CONLEVEL. It counts for little if the capitalisation has been assumed (make an ass of you and me) and has not been explicitly discussed. That was the purpose of this RM. I would suggest that you re-evaluate the arguments made through the lens of P&G and reconsider your close. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:40, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was a very good, commonsense close of a proper name. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have a strong claim to MOS, but your opposers have a weak claim to policy, yet policy arguments are stronger than MOS arguments. Syrian revolution is currently at a move review, and I wouldn't be surprised if this ends up there too. I suspect a wider RFC is in order, but based on what I've seen, I'm not too excited about opening that particular can of worms. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 21:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While your close continues to strongly indicate that your consensus to move was based on a VOTE and not by evaluating the strength of argument through the lens of prevailing P&G (and where this lies), it is very likely that this will wind at MR. You may find this comment at the Syrian revolution MR illuminating as there are marked similarities between the two RMs. I would also ask if you noticed this ngram that was presented in the discussion - a contexturalised search to eliminate non-prose uses (eg titles of sources using titlecase) that are captured by a raw ngram search. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this was an obvious no-consensus situation, with about 8 opposers and 13 supporters (if I counted right). I don't know what you mean by policy arguments being stronger. There's no policy to capitalize things that are mostly lowercase in sources, even if caps have increased in recent years. Please just revert your close and leave it to a more experienced closer. Dicklyon (talk) 03:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

St. Peter's Basilica

Morning RetroCosmos, and oof, sorry for contacting you after the close, I totally missed this... but I don't like this move at all. First of all, the opening premise for the move rationale, saying "The abbreviation "St." in the current title is considered to be American and Canadian English" is as far as I know completely false. As someone in the UK, it's far more often "St." than "Saint"... see [1] for just one example. Secondly, some suppporters cited WP:COMMONNAME, but again the evidence I can see - particularly for ngrams - suggests strongly that sources usually render it with the abbreviated "St." rather than spelled out. It's slightly more WP:CONCISE too, as a minor addendum.

I can see there was a lot of support, but given that the reasons given for the move were almost entirely incorrect, would you mind relisting it for another week so that this can be discussed further? Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 08:28, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru, the official website] provides the full word if that adds weight to the move. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That revelation was made after closure, so I'll reopen discussion with a note to discuss based on what you've brought up here. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 22:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ping me if you want me to move it back. Remsense ‥ 论 22:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've reopened discussion, but not moved the page. If you could do so that would be great. Please let me know if I've broken anything. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 22:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru, I would disagree that the support was based on an incorrect reason. While historically "St." was dominant in British English, the abbreviation "St" these days is generally preferred, as can be seen in the Ngrams (substitute in the name of any saint you like; they all seem to show the same trend). This usage is reflected in the style guides of major English-speaking governments outside North America, such as the Australian, British, European, New Zealand, and South African government style guides, which all say either to not use full stops with abbreviations at all, or to only use them in specific circumstances, none of which include when abbreviating the word "saint". In regards to the London Underground example that you raised, TfL's current style guide says to use the form "St", which they do on the tube map. It appears from the page you linked to that this policy has not yet been fully implemented across all TfL usage, but nonetheless I don't think that example should be extrapolated to indicate that the usage "St." is dominant outside of North America. There is an evident usage difference here between the two major English varieties, and therefore I would argue that the WP:COMMONALITY argument in support of the move is valid and should not be discounted. Tomiĉo (talk) 11:22, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomiĉo: I guess this isn't a battle I'm going to win then, but it just seems a bit silly to me, that given a slight preference for "St." in the US and a slight preference for "St" in the UK, we decide in the interests of "commonality" to go for the form "Saint", which is the least common way of rendering it in all the locales. In particular, if we filter our ngram for British English usage only - [2] - we see that while "St" has the lead, "St." is still considerably more used than "Saint". This isn't one of those cases where it's jarring for a British reader, I would personally fully expect to see "St." rather than "Saint". Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 14:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]