User:StraussInTheHouse/topicons User:StraussInTheHouse/talkheader

Hello all, I'm back now. I forgot to deactivate the archival bot before I left, so I shall answer the messages which have since been archived here and if further discussion is needed, please create a new section.

• @Genesyz:: per Special:Diff/878568219: no problem. SITH (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @In ictu oculi, Bishonen, Flooded with them hundreds, and Andrewa:: per Special:Diff/878742318: I think it was non-controversial enough for a clear consensus to be determined per the guidelines, if you want to appeal it at WP:MRV, feel free. SITH (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It should not have been closed by a non-admin, you can still reopen it. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In ictu oculi, the page mover policy allows page movers to close requested move discussions and determine consensus. If you give me a reason other than my non-administrator status, especially concerning why you think my determination of consensus was incorrect, I would be more than happy to re-open it. If you can't do that, I see no valid reason on why my close was in error, so you will have to take it to move review in that case. SITH (talk) 13:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tnank you for your close. After moves that involve a change in topic structure (typically when the move involves moving a dab page to or from a primary title), it's usually a good idea to fix any redirects (so they point to the correct article) or links from dab pages or hatnotes. At the minimum, the link on a dab page should be updated, so that we don't have situations like this, where the article previously at the primary title has all of a sudden become inaccessible. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 01:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uanfala, yarp, my bad, now fixed the disambiguator; going to tidy up the hatnote in a mo. SITH (talk) 09:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As per your comments i have replaced the content. Kindly review it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameelixe (talk • contribs) 06:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jameelixe, I or another reviewer will review it in due course, please see the infobox on WP:PAFC for the estimated maximum waiting time. SITH (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi StraussInTheHouse Thanks for the review and for your tips. I've applied changes. Need to explain something, though. You've pointed the wiki page explaining the difference between a bulleted list and prose (regarding the incorrect use of the bullet points, I suppose). But I used the bullet points as requested by AngusWOOF: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AngusWOOF#about_the_declined_article:_Apeiron_-_Research_and_Publishing_Institute_for_Security_and_Defence_Studies

"Jakub Dusza, I would simplify the list of journals to a bullet list with single paragraph for each journal. I would also find more sources that show the journals are notable per WP:NJOURNAL and highlight that in the comments. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)"

Regards Jakub Dusza (talk) 10:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jakub Dusza, apologies, I'm pinging AngusWOOF for input on the question of prose v.s. bullet points. That alone would not be grounds to reject it, the key issue was with NPOV compliance. SITH (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]