![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
An editor has asked for a Move review of Budweiser. 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. Jirka.h23 ( talk) 19:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Before I go to WP:MR, I would like to understand why you thought there was a consensus in favour of a move. It seemed very clear to me that there was no such consensus: the three options proposed received broadly equal votes, though the Anheuser Busch option received least. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 20:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Reasonable close IMO. Thanks for taking the time to make it, wouldn't have been an easy call whichever way you went. I probably didn't help much by muddying the waters and talking about restoring the concept dab. Cheers, Jenks24 ( talk) 11:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
My understanding of the convention in dealing with RtM is this: unless there is a clear consensus for change, then the article stays as it is. It is not enough to say that you found the arguments convincing: you are not judge, jury and executioner. As an Administrator, you may only determine whether the Request has been managed fairly: you may only make a judgement call if there is a substantial majority but a small but noisy minority. That was not true in this case. You go on to assert that arguments against should be discounted because, in your opinion, "these fail to take into account English-language use". First, you have no right to discount votes like that [you may have confused yourself over the convention to use place names familiar to English speakers] and in any case I think you mean 'American language' use. Please remember that there is wide international readership for en.wikipedia because English is the most common second language. And for what its worth, many restaurants and up-market bars in the UK serve Budweiser Budvar rather than Bud. Finally, two wrongs don't make a right: I questioned the editor who moved this article to a simple disambig without consultation, but nobody but I and the mover showed any interest. I'm somewhat amazed by the number of editors that came out of the woodwork when a proposal was made to give a US corporation precedence, timed perfectly for the August holiday season in Europe. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 19:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
We went through a long debate three years ago about whether a certain film was a reboot or a prequel. I see no use in opening the door to that debate again by mentioning original possible conceptions in the article. The film is a series reboot. Unless you're going to spend lots of space on explaining how it became a series reboot and was no longer a prequel by the time it entered production, no good will come from mentioning that word. You're not giving space to all the other decisions that went into its early development, so there's no need for this detail. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 21:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi. What's the issue with moving Blacktown to Blacktown, NSW?
Sardaka ( talk) 08:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I can see that article probably getting quite heated very quickly and is tied in with current Sarkeesian events, so we may end up with another fork. Koncorde ( talk) 09:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Cuchullain! It seems that when you moved Freedom to Freedom (disambiguation), and then changed Freedom to redirect to Liberty, you didn't take into account all the pages that were linking to Freedom, such as Freedom (song). A bot " fixed" the double redirect by changing Freedom (song) from linking to Freedom#Songs to Liberty#Songs, which doesn't exist. Instead, it should have changed it to Freedom (disambiguation)#Songs. This is one of 14 bad edits that the bot made, which I am now fixing. When moving disambiguation pages in the future, could you please remember to change all the incoming links before a bot messes them up? Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 12:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Planet of the Apes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Mooney. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
For your tireless efforts to keep Anita Sarkeesian free of non-notable, anti-feminist critique, I award you the Defender of the Wiki Barnstar. Peter Isotalo 09:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC) |
Cuchullain, I altered your recent pending changes restriction on this page; the recent persistent disruption certainly needs to be dealt with and using PC2 seems like a sensible WP:IAR solution to me, however with PC2 being contentious I think indefinite use is stretching the protection policy a bit far and have added a 60 day expiration to the PC setting. Please ping me if you want to discuss. — xaosflux Talk 14:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I am looking for info on friend Burton Barrs we are trying to write obituary. . He passed away last week. We believe he was class of 1955 and would have graduated Lee. Don't know how to verify that. Don't know anyone with yearbooks Can you help? Pat. ( fletcher grad) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.187.134 ( talk) 17:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
There was another "supports" that should be changed to "supporters" that you missed. The "Some supports believe..." towards the end of the section.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜) 19:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I found some more minor fixes that need doing described at Talk:GamerGate#Minor fixes requested if you're not busy.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜) 17:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Hey, did you see my recent comment on the talk page about additional sources regarding criticism of Sarkeesian?-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi... First time 'user' having signed up a while ago, but never edited or talked to anyone or anything.
Anywho, I was listening to the radio and heard a story about Gamergate, and decided to check on Wikipedia. The story I heard also mentioned Anita Sarkeesian, among other topics, that I'm not sure are truly connected to Gamergate. Regardless, I wanted to check the various topics. I know the details of Gamergate are not fully settled and it's a controversial subject, so I can appreciate difficulties there.
My real issue is with the Anita page.... There doesn't seem to be an objective 'criticisms' section. Having previously watched her feminist frequency videos, there were errors in her ... 'Reporting'?... On some of the games. I wanted to inquire whether I or someone else could right a sub-header for the article detailing this legitimate criticism, as her unnecessary and vile harassment already has an explanation on her page already.
Hope to hear back, or see the edited page soon.
Kiraklatoo ( talk) 22:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC) kiraklatoo (?)
Hey Cuchullain. I don't know if you realized this in regards to the discussion: during the discussion prior to your close, the nominator moved the page to a different title than they had proposed. I'm not sure of you noticed this during your close, but I thought it would be wise to point this out, in case it affects your close in any way. Steel1943 ( talk) 20:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
On the talk page for Wonder Pets!, there is no consensus on no move. There is the same amount of opposing as supporting users - it must continue until consensus is reached. Please reconsider your decision to close it. If pages such as "Yo Gabba Gabba!", "The Mighty B!" and "All Grown Up!" can have exclamation marks, it seems that it should too. Momsandy ( talk) 12:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Cuchullain, if you're really concerned about edit warring at Gamergate controversy, you could give a warning call to User:Tarc who has broken the three revert rule today, as well as s/he did several times in the past weeks. Not that one or two of their edits of today were not justified, but rules have to be the same for all and the 3RR is a hard limit. Diego ( talk) 21:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Cuchullain, just saw your pending changes level 2 (require review permission) of Zoe Quinn ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and wanted to let you know that there is currently no consensus to use that protection level on enwiki, see WP:PP#When to apply pending changes protection. I haven't changed it, but I thought I'd let you know in case you weren't already aware. Regards, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 02:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Hey, Cooch. I'm not even sure how this redirect (see [2]) can exist in parallel with an article with an identical page title (see List of University of Florida alumni), but I'm pretty sure the redirect needs to be deleted. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 16:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello Cuchullain. As one of the admins who has fully protected the page in the past, you might have an opinion on the proposal for a 1RR restriction that was advanced by User:Callanecc. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 02:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
In reference to the recent change you made to the Raven (disambiguation), I do not object at all to the change, but I am confused over the reason that you gave. I sorted the Film and television section into chronological order of newest first.
You reversed the order into chronological order of newest last, which is fine, but then you specified as your reason, "This should be either chronological, or alphabetical," which makes no sense when applied to the change you made to my change. We both sorted by chronological order, either ascending or descending. Who sorted by "alphabetical," though - where did that come from?
Christopher, Salem, OR (
talk)
00:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I seeing a rising level of hostility to any contributions by new editors, established users seemingly reflexive in opposition to virtually any contribution. While I'm in full agreement with the last sentence of your statement here, and am equally apprehensive, I myself feel compelled to chart an editorial course towards maintaining civility even towards those with whom I strongly disagree. I am concerned that actions taken, even by those with whom I agree on the merits, do not cover us all in glory. That this semi-coordinated body of trolls and disruptors has beset several game related pages I agree, but I feel compelled to tell a colleague of my concern. The situation is filling perfectly good editors with anger and causing them to shoot off words not befitting civil discourse. In that case, trolls win. BusterD ( talk) 15:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your work on the page for Anita Sarkeesian. I gave up editing controversial pages because it was too unpleasant. I greatly appreciate people willing to maintain controversial pages. Espertus ( talk) 22:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm sitting in my sandbox trying to come up with neutral language in an RFC for the AEI video's weight. Before I "release the hounds" if you will, can you check over my work? Zero Serenity ( talk - contributions) 19:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
And here we go. Zero Serenity ( talk - contributions) 17:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Cuchullain, the version of the ReadWrite reference with expanded quotes in the reference was the result of a consensus at Anita Sarkeesian. Removing it merely because the content is being refactored to a different place is showing very bad taste, not only because the content is no longer well explained (as I've tagged, your removal makes unclear what "the rest of her Kickstarter money" refers to), but because you're retracting from the consensus we reached at the time. Agreeing to a change as a way to reach a concession on my part, only to retract your side of the agreement later, is explicitly listed as one of the recognized ways of gaming the system, and you don't want to do that, right? Diego ( talk) 14:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Don't worry about TDA, the community is well aware of his behavior, as evidenced by fact that he got more voters weighing in on his candidacy than anyone else at the last Arbcom election: WP:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2013#Results. aprock ( talk) 22:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Since you have participated in at least one Requested Move or Move Review discussion, either as participant or closer, regarding the title of the article currently at Sarah Jane Brown, you are being notified that there is another discussion about that going on now, at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#Requested move #10. We hope we can finally achieve consensus among all participating about which title best meets policy and guidelines, and is not too objectionable. -- В²C ☎ 17:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
We've been in a dialogue on the Tropes vs Women talk page and we didn't exactly agree on all arguments brought forward. Nevertheless i'd value your opinion on whether or not i should open a seperate section about the Paste magazine piece being a personal opinion/column and thus not a valid reference. I mainly brought it forward as an example of how we should stay alert if we're really holding positive and critical sources up to the same scrutiny. Being an involved administrator on pages related to gamergate must be a tough job and since i'm already involved in several discussion topics, i won't start a topic about this without your approval. PizzaMan ( ♨♨) 20:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Sorry to disturb, I do not know what a "RM discussion" means, so I'd like to understand why you reverted this article to a non-French spelling. Nicollier is the legal official French name, Nicolier is the old Serbocroatian spelling (in Latin-alphabet Croatian, there should be a possible letter-to-letter match to the Cyrillic-alphabet Serbian, so Croatian is a rare language transcribing foreign names to true "phonetics" spelling, this is no more used in Croatian today, as a quick look to the Croat-language wikipedia (on the contrary, in Serbian with latin we still have Fransoa Oland for François Hollande). So would you be kind to explain how to open a "RM discussion" and where to view the previous one? Thanks in advance. Best regards. --— J. F. B. ( me´n parlar) 19:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
An editor has asked for a Move review of Budweiser. 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. Jirka.h23 ( talk) 19:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Before I go to WP:MR, I would like to understand why you thought there was a consensus in favour of a move. It seemed very clear to me that there was no such consensus: the three options proposed received broadly equal votes, though the Anheuser Busch option received least. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 20:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Reasonable close IMO. Thanks for taking the time to make it, wouldn't have been an easy call whichever way you went. I probably didn't help much by muddying the waters and talking about restoring the concept dab. Cheers, Jenks24 ( talk) 11:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
My understanding of the convention in dealing with RtM is this: unless there is a clear consensus for change, then the article stays as it is. It is not enough to say that you found the arguments convincing: you are not judge, jury and executioner. As an Administrator, you may only determine whether the Request has been managed fairly: you may only make a judgement call if there is a substantial majority but a small but noisy minority. That was not true in this case. You go on to assert that arguments against should be discounted because, in your opinion, "these fail to take into account English-language use". First, you have no right to discount votes like that [you may have confused yourself over the convention to use place names familiar to English speakers] and in any case I think you mean 'American language' use. Please remember that there is wide international readership for en.wikipedia because English is the most common second language. And for what its worth, many restaurants and up-market bars in the UK serve Budweiser Budvar rather than Bud. Finally, two wrongs don't make a right: I questioned the editor who moved this article to a simple disambig without consultation, but nobody but I and the mover showed any interest. I'm somewhat amazed by the number of editors that came out of the woodwork when a proposal was made to give a US corporation precedence, timed perfectly for the August holiday season in Europe. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 19:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
We went through a long debate three years ago about whether a certain film was a reboot or a prequel. I see no use in opening the door to that debate again by mentioning original possible conceptions in the article. The film is a series reboot. Unless you're going to spend lots of space on explaining how it became a series reboot and was no longer a prequel by the time it entered production, no good will come from mentioning that word. You're not giving space to all the other decisions that went into its early development, so there's no need for this detail. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 21:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi. What's the issue with moving Blacktown to Blacktown, NSW?
Sardaka ( talk) 08:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I can see that article probably getting quite heated very quickly and is tied in with current Sarkeesian events, so we may end up with another fork. Koncorde ( talk) 09:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Cuchullain! It seems that when you moved Freedom to Freedom (disambiguation), and then changed Freedom to redirect to Liberty, you didn't take into account all the pages that were linking to Freedom, such as Freedom (song). A bot " fixed" the double redirect by changing Freedom (song) from linking to Freedom#Songs to Liberty#Songs, which doesn't exist. Instead, it should have changed it to Freedom (disambiguation)#Songs. This is one of 14 bad edits that the bot made, which I am now fixing. When moving disambiguation pages in the future, could you please remember to change all the incoming links before a bot messes them up? Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 12:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Planet of the Apes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Mooney. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
For your tireless efforts to keep Anita Sarkeesian free of non-notable, anti-feminist critique, I award you the Defender of the Wiki Barnstar. Peter Isotalo 09:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC) |
Cuchullain, I altered your recent pending changes restriction on this page; the recent persistent disruption certainly needs to be dealt with and using PC2 seems like a sensible WP:IAR solution to me, however with PC2 being contentious I think indefinite use is stretching the protection policy a bit far and have added a 60 day expiration to the PC setting. Please ping me if you want to discuss. — xaosflux Talk 14:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I am looking for info on friend Burton Barrs we are trying to write obituary. . He passed away last week. We believe he was class of 1955 and would have graduated Lee. Don't know how to verify that. Don't know anyone with yearbooks Can you help? Pat. ( fletcher grad) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.187.134 ( talk) 17:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
There was another "supports" that should be changed to "supporters" that you missed. The "Some supports believe..." towards the end of the section.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜) 19:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I found some more minor fixes that need doing described at Talk:GamerGate#Minor fixes requested if you're not busy.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜) 17:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Hey, did you see my recent comment on the talk page about additional sources regarding criticism of Sarkeesian?-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi... First time 'user' having signed up a while ago, but never edited or talked to anyone or anything.
Anywho, I was listening to the radio and heard a story about Gamergate, and decided to check on Wikipedia. The story I heard also mentioned Anita Sarkeesian, among other topics, that I'm not sure are truly connected to Gamergate. Regardless, I wanted to check the various topics. I know the details of Gamergate are not fully settled and it's a controversial subject, so I can appreciate difficulties there.
My real issue is with the Anita page.... There doesn't seem to be an objective 'criticisms' section. Having previously watched her feminist frequency videos, there were errors in her ... 'Reporting'?... On some of the games. I wanted to inquire whether I or someone else could right a sub-header for the article detailing this legitimate criticism, as her unnecessary and vile harassment already has an explanation on her page already.
Hope to hear back, or see the edited page soon.
Kiraklatoo ( talk) 22:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC) kiraklatoo (?)
Hey Cuchullain. I don't know if you realized this in regards to the discussion: during the discussion prior to your close, the nominator moved the page to a different title than they had proposed. I'm not sure of you noticed this during your close, but I thought it would be wise to point this out, in case it affects your close in any way. Steel1943 ( talk) 20:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
On the talk page for Wonder Pets!, there is no consensus on no move. There is the same amount of opposing as supporting users - it must continue until consensus is reached. Please reconsider your decision to close it. If pages such as "Yo Gabba Gabba!", "The Mighty B!" and "All Grown Up!" can have exclamation marks, it seems that it should too. Momsandy ( talk) 12:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Cuchullain, if you're really concerned about edit warring at Gamergate controversy, you could give a warning call to User:Tarc who has broken the three revert rule today, as well as s/he did several times in the past weeks. Not that one or two of their edits of today were not justified, but rules have to be the same for all and the 3RR is a hard limit. Diego ( talk) 21:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Cuchullain, just saw your pending changes level 2 (require review permission) of Zoe Quinn ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and wanted to let you know that there is currently no consensus to use that protection level on enwiki, see WP:PP#When to apply pending changes protection. I haven't changed it, but I thought I'd let you know in case you weren't already aware. Regards, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 02:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Hey, Cooch. I'm not even sure how this redirect (see [2]) can exist in parallel with an article with an identical page title (see List of University of Florida alumni), but I'm pretty sure the redirect needs to be deleted. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 16:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello Cuchullain. As one of the admins who has fully protected the page in the past, you might have an opinion on the proposal for a 1RR restriction that was advanced by User:Callanecc. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 02:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
In reference to the recent change you made to the Raven (disambiguation), I do not object at all to the change, but I am confused over the reason that you gave. I sorted the Film and television section into chronological order of newest first.
You reversed the order into chronological order of newest last, which is fine, but then you specified as your reason, "This should be either chronological, or alphabetical," which makes no sense when applied to the change you made to my change. We both sorted by chronological order, either ascending or descending. Who sorted by "alphabetical," though - where did that come from?
Christopher, Salem, OR (
talk)
00:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I seeing a rising level of hostility to any contributions by new editors, established users seemingly reflexive in opposition to virtually any contribution. While I'm in full agreement with the last sentence of your statement here, and am equally apprehensive, I myself feel compelled to chart an editorial course towards maintaining civility even towards those with whom I strongly disagree. I am concerned that actions taken, even by those with whom I agree on the merits, do not cover us all in glory. That this semi-coordinated body of trolls and disruptors has beset several game related pages I agree, but I feel compelled to tell a colleague of my concern. The situation is filling perfectly good editors with anger and causing them to shoot off words not befitting civil discourse. In that case, trolls win. BusterD ( talk) 15:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your work on the page for Anita Sarkeesian. I gave up editing controversial pages because it was too unpleasant. I greatly appreciate people willing to maintain controversial pages. Espertus ( talk) 22:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm sitting in my sandbox trying to come up with neutral language in an RFC for the AEI video's weight. Before I "release the hounds" if you will, can you check over my work? Zero Serenity ( talk - contributions) 19:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
And here we go. Zero Serenity ( talk - contributions) 17:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Cuchullain, the version of the ReadWrite reference with expanded quotes in the reference was the result of a consensus at Anita Sarkeesian. Removing it merely because the content is being refactored to a different place is showing very bad taste, not only because the content is no longer well explained (as I've tagged, your removal makes unclear what "the rest of her Kickstarter money" refers to), but because you're retracting from the consensus we reached at the time. Agreeing to a change as a way to reach a concession on my part, only to retract your side of the agreement later, is explicitly listed as one of the recognized ways of gaming the system, and you don't want to do that, right? Diego ( talk) 14:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Don't worry about TDA, the community is well aware of his behavior, as evidenced by fact that he got more voters weighing in on his candidacy than anyone else at the last Arbcom election: WP:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2013#Results. aprock ( talk) 22:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Since you have participated in at least one Requested Move or Move Review discussion, either as participant or closer, regarding the title of the article currently at Sarah Jane Brown, you are being notified that there is another discussion about that going on now, at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#Requested move #10. We hope we can finally achieve consensus among all participating about which title best meets policy and guidelines, and is not too objectionable. -- В²C ☎ 17:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
We've been in a dialogue on the Tropes vs Women talk page and we didn't exactly agree on all arguments brought forward. Nevertheless i'd value your opinion on whether or not i should open a seperate section about the Paste magazine piece being a personal opinion/column and thus not a valid reference. I mainly brought it forward as an example of how we should stay alert if we're really holding positive and critical sources up to the same scrutiny. Being an involved administrator on pages related to gamergate must be a tough job and since i'm already involved in several discussion topics, i won't start a topic about this without your approval. PizzaMan ( ♨♨) 20:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Sorry to disturb, I do not know what a "RM discussion" means, so I'd like to understand why you reverted this article to a non-French spelling. Nicollier is the legal official French name, Nicolier is the old Serbocroatian spelling (in Latin-alphabet Croatian, there should be a possible letter-to-letter match to the Cyrillic-alphabet Serbian, so Croatian is a rare language transcribing foreign names to true "phonetics" spelling, this is no more used in Croatian today, as a quick look to the Croat-language wikipedia (on the contrary, in Serbian with latin we still have Fransoa Oland for François Hollande). So would you be kind to explain how to open a "RM discussion" and where to view the previous one? Thanks in advance. Best regards. --— J. F. B. ( me´n parlar) 19:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)