User talk:162 etc.

Your move of Perfect Imperfection

Hi 162 etc. I hope you're having a great day. Would you mind having a quick chat about the move of Perfect Imperfection at RMTR, helping me understand why you went through with it. While the move was not directly listed at RMTR the article about the novel first had to be moved away from PTOPIC so that the disambiguation page even could take its place. Shortly before the TR Perfect Imperfection was moved away to Perfect Imperfection (novel) so essentially I was taking it into consideration as well when I took a look at the TR. Since it kind of is a primary topic "ungrab" I moved it to contested requests. While I did not list it in the contestion at the time the move of Perfect Imperfection -> Perfect Imperfection (novel) probably already should have gone through a PM given the discussion about the article title 9 years ago. Therefore I think rather that move should have been reverted and the move away from PTOP and our TR move should have been listed at a subsequent RM.

Is there some flaw in my logic or is there something else I did not consider?

Kind Regards ~ Squawk7700 (talk) 19:41, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your contributions.

I don't see where this previous discussion took place? If I had seen it, I wouldn't have moved it.

Feel free to revert and/or start an RM for this. 162 etc. (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply there was a very short convo here Talk:Perfect Imperfection (novel) § Ideal Imperfection but I'm not sure that qualifies as "[…] past debate about the best title […]" so you might be right. Anyways I don't think discussing this for a week is the best use of volunteer time so I'll leave it since I'm honestly not invested enough. Have a great day :) ~ Squawk7700 (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Major League Volleyball

In response to your request to start another discussion: if I were to present a new large batch of sources to the discussion, would you be open-minded to it, or are you immovable in your view that the PVF and MLV are not contiguous? I hope you can understand that I'm not going to waste my time and energy putting in the research and effort like I have the previous two times, if it's going to be broadly ignored once again. — AFC Vixen 🦊 02:22, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your contributions. From what I can see on the talkpages, an actual merge discussion has yet to happen. That would likely be the next step. See WP:MERGE. 162 etc. (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm referring to this discussion on Talk:Pro Volleyball Federation, and this discussion on Talk:Major League Volleyball (2026)—the latter of which you participated in, and described the league as "a league which has yet to play a single game", implying you believed the leagues to be non-contiguous despite the wealth of sources I provided stating otherwise. — AFC Vixen 🦊 02:59, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

As long as there are two articles, they should not WP:CFORK each other. If consensus determines that MLV is indeed a continuation of PVF, then the articles will be merged. 162 etc. (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Please answer my question. I'm not asking about others' opinions, I'm asking for yours. — AFC Vixen 🦊 23:33, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

My expertise is in Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not women's volleyball. It's unlikely that I would participate in the merge discussion. 162 etc. (talk) 00:35, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Why rolling back disambiguation?

I see that you rolled back all of my edits attempting to link pages with the YOLO title to the appropriate disambiguation page. These were good faith edits, not vandalism (as you flagged them). If I am out of step with Wikipedia policy somehow, please explain? John_Abbe (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your contributions.

Per WP:NAMB, "It is usually preferable not to have a hatnote when the name of the article is not ambiguous." These article titles are fully disambiguated, and there is no realistic scenario where somebody seeking a different meaning will arrive at the wrong article. The hatnotes are therefore unnecessary, and I've removed them. Note also that I made no mention of vandalism when reverting these good faith edits. 162 etc. (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

That makes sense for most of those cases. Will reapply the edits only on pages where confusion is likely. And started adding relevant links to See also sections, mostly a better fit there. John_Abbe (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Grouping types of disambiguation pages

You rolled back my last edit to Yolo with the comment, 'Links to other disambiguation pages go in "See also".' Disambiguation pages (including this one) regularly group together relevant pages that fall into a category. The page had two links that were both about the aphorism, You Only Live Once, so I grouped them, same as any other category. John_Abbe (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, the Yolo dabpage is for topics named "Yolo". "You Only Live Once" is not an exact title match and therefore should not be in the main article body, but the "See also" section. This is all explained at MOS:DAB, which I linked in the edit summary; see specifically MOS:DABSEEALSO. 162 etc. (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of White Girl Mob for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article White Girl Mob is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Girl Mob until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

Arbor to SJ (talk) 04:36, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Pointe-Noire, Quebec

Greetings. Can you provide me with some insights regarding the effective deletion of the page? What is the rationale behind the decision? Where is the discussion with the community? Webfil (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for reaching out. The Pointe-Noire article was a three sentence stub, with no indication of real WP:SIGCOV. The contents can easily be merged into the Sept-Îles article. See WP:N. 162 etc. (talk) 19:14, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

@162 etc. : Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Moreover, it's up to the community to debate whether SIGCOV is sufficient or WP:NPLACE should prevail. The fact that the article is linked to one interlanguage (where 9 different sources are cited), an 8 kB wikidata entry with sources and keys to other databases, a Commons category populated with 6 different pictures, and that it is viewed 40 times per month (bots and AI excluded) should be taken into account by an experienced WP contributor as to whether a formal deletion process could be appropriate.

Per WP:ATD-R, I will revert the edit; you may launch a AfD if you oppose. Webfil (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Pop music in Taiwan

Hello, could you please give a valid rationale for constantly reverting my edits for Pop music in Taiwan? You mentioned that it is a WP:CFORK from Hokkien pop but it is not the case if you read the article carefully. The article refers to pop music that are specifically produced in Taiwan or associated with Taiwan's music industry, which is not the case for Hokkien Pop or Mandopop as both contain music from other countries, e.g. Hong Kong, China, Malaysia, Singapore, etc. Therefore, Pop music in Taiwan should a standalone article that mentions all forms of popular music that originated in Taiwan throughout history, including Mandopop, Campus folk song, Taiwanese hip hop, Taiwanese Indigenous pop music, and Taiwanese rock, as well as any other forms that might emerge in the future.

The pop music-related pages do not necessarily have to be binded by language, as can be seen by pages such as Austropop – which is mainly sung in German but does not share the same article with German pop music, as well as Hong Kong English, American and British pop music which are all sung in English but have separate pages.

If you have an issue with my edits, you should raise this in the talk page with a discussion involving the community, taking into consideration other WP users' contributions and opinions instead of blatantly reverting all my edits.

If the main issue you are raising is the non-attribution, I have already paraphrased the entire article. Heeheemalu (talk) 01:11, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your contributions. I note your bold creation of Pop music in Taiwan, which I've again reverted. WP:CFORK asks us not to create two articles about the exact same thing; that is indeed what happened here with the article you created. I urge you to use WP:AFC should you want to pursue this. 162 etc. (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:CFORK is defined as "a piece of content (such as an inter-wiki object, a page, or a page section) that has the same scope as another piece of content that predated it, essentially covering the same topic." Pop music in Taiwan is not the "exact same thing" as any other existing pages. As I already mentioned in my message above, Hokkien pop and Mandopop both contain music from other countries, e.g. Hong Kong, China, Malaysia, Singapore, etc. and Pop music in Taiwan includes all pop music produced in Taiwan. Therefore, the scope is clearly different. Please stop your actions unless you can explain your rationale logically instead of just repeating your statements that have already been refuted. I have already reported your edits as vandalism and requested you to be blocked. Heeheemalu (talk) 01:15, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pop music in Taiwan. 162 etc. (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Recent move of Qurban (Islamic ritual sacrifice) to Qurban

The problem with this move is that Qurban only in the context of Islam refers to a ritual sacrifice, the term in Christian Arabic usage and English-language usage relating to the Syriac rites etc. is used as the equivalent of prophoron in the Eastern Orthodox usage and Eucharist in Western usage. Thus the disambiguation in the title wasn’t really superfluous at all as someone stumbling upon the term in academic or religious texts not related to Islam will now be led to think the article is any way related to the concept… Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

See Holy Qurobo and Holy Qurbana all of these are called Qurban in Arabic and various texts dealing with these largely Arabic-speaking communities. Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your contributions.

Disambiguation tags are used to disambiguate, not to add context. Unless there is one or more topics on Wikipedia known in English as "Qurban", the move to the base title is correct. The usage of "Qurban" in the Arabic language is not a consideration. Do any English-language sources refer to any of the topics you mentioned above as "Qurban"? 162 etc. (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, this is part of the standard vocabulary deployed in these contexts especially in everyday usage see:

https://archive.org/details/divine-liturgy-of-the-maronite-church-history-commentary-chorbishop/page/26/mode/1up?q=Qurban

https://archive.org/details/divine-liturgy-of-the-maronite-church-history-commentary-chorbishop/page/26/mode/1up?q=Qurban

Here an example of English-language academic usage (but again this is standard vocabulary and is used in academic texts in various European languages for orientalist/theological work not just English but also German, French etc.):

https://www.jstor.org/stable/25212150

There should have been a proper disambiguation page disambiguating Jewish usage (ie Korban), Eastern vs Western Syriac usage, and Islamic usage because right now the only disambiguation is done by using different transliteration systems for a term that is fundamentally the same between these languages. The -a suffix in Qurbana is the definite article, the "k" in "korban" is also in truth a Qaf in the Hebrew script, and the difference between u and o isn’t clearly defined in any of the languages, so in truth we have a single term across three languages Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic with different meanings depending on which religion the speaker belongs to. Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 16:22, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm still pretty confident that the article currently at Qurban is the primary topic. I encourage you to start a discussion at Talk:Qurban to discuss this further with other editors. 162 etc. (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I doubt that it is the primary topic (at least without a qualifier). Qurban is not the dominant term in Islamic Arabic today with the purely Arabic أضحية Udh7iyya being much more common in everyday usage (and thus also in derived loans like "Udhiyah" by Arabic-speaking Muslims; with Qurbani etc. existing in communities Islamized by Iranid dynasties or Turkic dynasties Islamized by Iranid dynasties). Udh7iyya remains dominant in contemporary Arabic because the festival is commonly known as Eid al-Adha (and أضحية derives directly from أضحى). In Arabic "Qurban" is qur'anic vocabulary and usually understood much more broadly (compare Quran 46:28). The term is quite prevalent in Persian where it would rather be transliterated Qorban or Ghorban today and Turkish (adopting the vocabulary prevalent Persian like most Turkic languages) were it has been spelled "kurban" since the alphabet change. The reason the term is popular in English-language orientalist scholarship (aside from being the primary vocabulary deployed by the Ottoman state) is that this term is known to any English-speaker familiar with the KJV and the common vocabulary of anglophone Christianity as "Corban" transliterated directly from Greek (in turn transliterating the Aramaic term) occurs in Mark 7:11 and has been decently explained by Sunday sermons since various denominations have required their clergy to learn Hebrew. I‘d argue the onus is on you to propose your change and to undo it until then, because as it stands you seem to have actively ambiguated a helpful title while not knowing the relevant Aramaic term that has even been a somewhat-common English word since the Protestant Reformation… Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Just to drive home just how dominant "Adha" is for this specific sacrifice here is the ngram. As you can see English corban (related solely to the Jewish and Christian rituals) leads the charge and has essentially always led the charge and in Islamic usage "Qurban" has always been somewhat fringe, with orientalist texts choosing the term most familiar to Christian (and Jewish) readers already not the term actually representative of the common vocabulary of the Muslim world.

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Qurban%2CQurbani%2CAdha%2CKurban%2CCorban%2CKorban&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3 Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 23:08, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Qurban is the best place to discuss the article title. 162 etc. (talk) 16:47, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Mass deletion of sourced content by 162 etc.

User User:162 etc. has removed 28,545 bytes of sourced content from Philippines national baseball team citing WP:COATRACK, claiming the boxscores belong only in tournament articles. Similar game result content exists on comparable articles such as Japan national baseball team and South Korea national baseball team, making COATRACK an inconsistent justification. Diffs of removal: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippines_national_baseball_team&diff=1360852597&oldid=1360771570 Current stable version to preserve: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippines_national_baseball_team&oldid=1360852597 ~2026-36549-39 (talk) ~2026-36549-39 (talk) 01:14, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

June 2026

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Mass deletion of sourced content by 162 etc.. Thanks. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 01:22, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Brookfield Place (Toronto) when you modified the page, you introduced unknown parameters. Just because you specify |some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The |some_param= must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. Note I have likely fixed the error by now so check the history of the page to see how it was fixed. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:34, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Deletion of Hakan Utangac

Why did you delete Hakan Utangaç article?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hakan_Utanga%C3%A7&curid=2840343&diff=1360771879&oldid=1350546652

And also this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metin_T%C3%BCrkcan&curid=52555623&diff=1360779614&oldid=1328313423

unforgvn20 (talk) 01:40, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your contributions. Per WP:BANDMEMBER, "Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability." That is indeed the case with these individuals. 162 etc. (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

NHL reverts

I am very well aware of WP:ENGVAR. However, it is a longstanding practice at WP:NHL to use the British spelling for players oustide of the United States. For example, we use "defensman"/"defense" for American players and "defenceman"/"defence" for all other players. Same goes for "center"/"honor" (Americans) and "centre"/"honour" (non-Americans). Therefore, I have restored the correct spelling to those three pages, which is "honour" as neither of those players are American. – sbaio 04:28, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your contributions. Note that local consensus does not override site policy. See WP:CONLEVEL. I'll also note that WP:HOCKEY/PPF mentions nothing about spelling or language varieties. 162 etc. (talk) 14:13, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

@Sbaio:

Good Old Boys

Hi, thank you for your contributions. I note your recent revert at this article.

I'm a bit puzzled at your judgment here. Note that a disambiguation page is not an index; the entries should only be for topics named "Good Old Boys". If we look at the entries in question:

• Old boy network and Old Boys make no mention of "Good Old Boys" anywhere in their articles, and do not appear to be known as "Good Old Boys".
• The entry mentioning Rural area, Rural poor and Yokel is a clear violation of WP:DABMENTION and WP:DABBLUE.
• American Pie (song) is not known in any sources as "Good Old Boys". Disambiguation pages are not a lyrics database
• The Child's Play song is not notable and there is no mention of it at Child's Play (band). Note that Ruff House was recently WP:BLARed
• "Good Old Boyz" does not link to an article at all
• Viejos amigos does not appear to be known as Good Old Boys, at least not according to any sources currently cited in that article
• Finally, disambiguation pages generally are not added to categories.

Why, specifically, do you believe any or all of the above should be included in the dabpage? 162 etc. (talk) 01:44, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the note. My apologies, life got busy of late.

First, in looking over you comments, I think for some, google may have failed you.

and Wiktionary may help clarify some. our primary goal in dab pages is to support the reader, and assist with navigation. all of these could be valid search targets.

I did remove the lyric, as you note, and presumably not notable on its own.

I agree about the cat, the goal was to reduce the see also list. honestly, this page should probably be a member of it.

Happy to further discuss. - jc37 03:21, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I've reverted the edits, per above. This is the Good Old Boys dabpage; any topics named "Old Boys" are indeed WP:PTM. The version you restored also violated WP:DABMENTION and WP:DABBLUE, as I noted previously. Further discussion can happen at Talk:Good Old Boys. Thank you for your continued contributions to the encyclopedia. 162 etc. (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Cascades

I wanna talk to you about the terminus for the Cascades at Pacific Central Station. It should say that the Cascades heads towards Eugene. It doesn't matter if no trains that start at Pacific Central actually go as far as Eugene. Look at the Northeast Regional. No train actually travels every single station possible. For example, at the Burke Centre station, it says heading towards Boston South or Springfield, even though no train that stops at Burke Centre actually goes as far as Springfield, Massachusetts. Also, look at Princeton Junction. There, it says that it can go towards Norfolk, Newport News, or Roanoke heading south, and Boston or Springfield, MA heading north. Even though no Northeast Regional train that actually stops at this stations goes as far as any of those southern termini or to Springfield. Endrias Kassa (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, discussion concerning this can happen at Talk:Pacific Central Station. 162 etc. (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Nettspend being listed under Nett (disambiguation)

Just wondering if it makes sense for Nettspend to be there, as it is a common nickname he goes by, even having his signature for the nickname. Cheromaniii (talk) 04:10, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for reaching out. Can you cite reliable secondary sources that refer to him as "Nett"? 162 etc. (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:requested moves

i made a request move for that page. it says in the talk page to not make move requests for other pages there but you can make one for that page as there have been 4 other move requests there before ~2026-38391-81 (talk) 15:32, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

so please do not revert that move request ~2026-38391-81 (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I urge you to read the previous discussion, where this was unanimously shot down. A different outcome today is unlikely; nothing has changed since. You may choose to withdraw the request, and I believe it is a good idea to do so. 162 etc. (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I've WP:SNOW closed the discussion, as it is obvious based on both the existing !votes and previous discussions that the request will not be successful. Better to not waste anyone's time. In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 17:28, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

@Gommeh: As you have participated in the discussion, you should not act as closer. I have no doubt that an uninvolved editor will come to the same conclusion and will close the discussion for us. 162 etc. (talk) 18:34, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough, but IMO WP:SNOW still allows WP:INVOLVED closures per WP:IAR. Regardless I am ok with letting someone else do this. In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 18:42, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Moves at AFD

AFD can find any outcome where there is a consensus. If you don't like it, go to DRV. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:25, 19 July 2026 (UTC)