User talk:Cremastra

🟡 I will be less active this fall, but am still checking my talk page regularly. I'm busier and busier IRL. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 21:15, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimood

[purge]	[edit]

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.

Start a new talk topic.

Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

This user does not mind criticism. Feel free to let them know if they did something wrong.

Promotion of Macrobdella decora

Congratulations, Cremastra! The article you nominated, Macrobdella decora, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, David Fuchs (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October thanks

Congratulations, - thank you for improving article quality in October! My latest: Roberta Alexander, - listen. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:29, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on pre-emptive disambiguation in constituency article titles

Would you be willing to change the close from "marking as historical" to "changing 'whether or not this is required for disambiguation' to 'when this is required for disambiguation'"? This preserves the advice on the uniform disambiguators, and is I think wholly in tune with the RfC. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:08, 17 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Hm, alright. Since the modified guideline is then in line with AT as opposed to contradicting it, I don't entirely see the difference, but it doesn't do any harm and would make it easier to change in the future. You're right that a change to the guideline rather than marking historical is more in tune with the RfC, although at least one !voter did call for it to be overturned. Overall, it's no big deal, so I've made the change to the guideline and will update my closing statement accordingly. Cheers, Cremastra (talk · contribs) 21:15, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but now we're still left with the bit at the end: A redirect or disambiguation page entry/hatnote must always be made from the base name. But the base name will either host the constituency article, be (or redirect to) a disambiguation page, or host another primary topic. Under no circumstances will the base name redirect to the article about the constituency. I agree when disambiguation is required, a consistent qualifier of "UK Parliament constituency" should be used, but do we really need a separate two-line naming convention for that? It's basic WP:CONSISTENT that could instead just be given as an example at WP:TITLECON. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best way forward is to start a discussion on the NCUKPARL talk page explicitly asking whether it should be marked historical or not. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 20:12, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 19:02, 19 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]