User talk:Beland

❧

Wikipedia

Feel free to leave a note at the bottom of this page in the usual manner; I assume you'll be subscribed to the thread to get notified about replies. Just to keep things tidy, I generally only keep stuff on this page if it requires further action from me or you haven't read my reply yet, so check the page history for older conversations if you need to refer back.

I created the spelling and grammar checking project at Wikipedia:Typo Team/moss. If you are responding to an edit related to special characters, language tags, or manual of style compliance, HTML cleanup or markup issues, it might have been motivated by some report generated by that project. -- Beland (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I have kept archives of Q&A on closures I've done for Wikipedia:Closure requests at User talk:Beland/archived closures, in case they are needed for future discussion. -- Beland (talk) 23:22, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Please stop converting thin spaces to ordinary spaces in mathematical typography.

Edits such as special:diff/1219321937, which in part converted some explicit thin spaces in mathematical typography to ordinary spaces, are not helpful. If another editor explicitly chose a size of space to stick into a formula, you should assume they did so for an intentional reason and not automatically second-guess that decision. Often regular spaces leave formulas written using plain wikimarkup (e.g. in {{math}} templates) looking incorrect, and explicit hair spaces or thin spaces make the formula appear more correctly. –jacobolus (t) 01:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jacobolus: In my experience, thin and hair spaces usually aren't necessary, and can sometimes cause excess whitespace. This is a good reason to keep markup simple, along with reducing the skill burden of learning wikitext so we can attract and retain editors. The version of Tensor with those removed renders correctly for me. Sometimes different operating systems and web browsers and fonts render characters like these in an overlapping way; I would consider that a bug in that stack which should be reported and fixed. But once that happens, we don't need to keep these characters around forever. Does the version without thin and hair spaces render incorrectly for you? It looks like Cedar101 may have been the first editor to introduce this character in 2017; pinging them to see if they are (still) having typographical problems. -- Beland (talk) 02:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
I am extremely dubious of the evidence-free claim that editors of very mathematical pages are deterred by the presence of occasional explicit unicode characters. But I can tell you for certain that good editors are highly discouraged by having their careful deliberate choices trampled by lazy automated regressions.
The version of Tensor with the full-sized spaces is definitely worse than the version with thin spaces, and it is clear why the thin spaces were originally chosen. If you feel like it you are welcome to rewrite the whole page using LaTeX instead, which looks better and has simpler markup, but please stop automatically breaking people's intentional choices in mathematical typography. –jacobolus (t) 03:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
@Jacobolus: Ah, your comment pointed out that I added space rather than removing it, which I missed. I would have expected the latter to generate complaints about overlapping text characters. I'm surprised that the complaint is that there was too much space; a full space is normally a safe substitution. It turns out I actually get overlapping characters myself with no space there, so I'll see what I can do to get that fixed. In the meantime, I'll use {{thinsp}} since those are generally a sign that someone is intentionally using a thin space in wikitext. (And it's nice that templates can have documentation to explain what they mean and why they are being used.) HTML entities are often automatically imported from other environments rather than being inserted intentionally.
A high difficulty of editing can result from an accumulation of small difficulties, which new editors sometimes must confront all at once to make useful contributions. Much of the point of wikitext is to spare editors from having to learn HTML, though it's reasonable to expect deeply involved math editors to know LaTeX. But it seems a bit much to expect, say, a math professor who already knows LaTeX to learn wikitext and HTML syntax if one of those isn't really necessary. Perhaps the added difficulty is more pronounced for articles where there isn't already a lot of complicated mathematical markup, but that is most of them. -- Beland (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Wikitext is built on HTML, and HTML entities are a basic feature. Using {{thinsp}} instead of   is not substantially beneficial. The template is not inherently more accessible, being a weird english-wikipedia-ism that someone has to go do a search to learn about instead of a common standard used across the web.
If you are writing a new page, feel free to use either one. But please don't do automatic replacements of one for another (not sure if you were planning on it). At best it creates pointless watchlist spam. From what I can tell this kind change does not have (and should not have) the backing of any sitewide policy. –jacobolus (t) 17:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
@Jacobolus: I generally assume that editors have to learn how to use Wikipedia templates, because they are used in pretty much every article, usually quite frequently. Wikification, where we replace web-standard HTML tags (which do work without modification) with Wikipedia-specific markup, is a general directive, and indeed the whole point of Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify. That wouldn't be necessary if we weren't trying to save people from learning HTML. I wasn't planning to mindlessly swap thin space HTML entities for templates, but at some point I will probably do a pass through the entire project to remove inappropriate ones. As you can see, most of the existing instances are not in math articles, are not fixing problems with overlapping characters, and do not align with our usual style. -- Beland (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
This seems like a huge waste of time. Most of the examples of thin spaces from your link seem deliberate, and don't seem to be harming anything. –jacobolus (t) 17:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
@Jacobolus: Well, the first instance, on Kazakhstan, actually is breaking the citation template, causing the string "&thinsp," to show up in the article. Even if it was working properly, a non-ASCII space would be polluting downstream data for citation consumers. (For example, journal web sites that list all Wikipedia references to papers on that paper's page.) The Pirate Bay is also polluting a citation template.
In the second article, Moon, the usage violates MOS:UNITNAMES, which specifies a full, non-breaking space between a number and a unit abbreviation. It looks sloppy to have different amounts of whitespace in different measurement expressions.
In the third article, Amazon (company), the usage violates MOS:$, which specifies no space after "US$" and a full, non-breaking space before "million". It looks sloppy to have different amounts of whitespace in different instances of currency expressions. Apartheid is breaking the same rule.
And so on. -- Beland (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

"Colony of Trinidad and Tobago"

Hi. I noticed that you've added "Colony of Trinidad and Tobago" as the birth place for a lot of people. There was never an entity by that name - from the time the two states were united only the name "Trinidad and Tobago" was used. It's a bit like talking about "the Republic of the United States of America" - sure, the country's a republic, but that isn't the formal or common name. Guettarda (talk) 22:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the "nationality" field is considered redundant if legal nationality was the same country as birthplace, and I was removing redundant fields. I remember adding in this case "British Empire" to clarify that people born in Trinidad and Tobago when it was a colony have British nationality. It doesn't particularly matter on its own if that field says "Trinidad and Tobago, British Empire" or "Colony of Trinidad and Tobago, British Empire".
For death place, we often omit the country or other larger-scale entities for the sake of brevity, but just writing "Trinidad and Tobago" would be a bit confusing it if it's referring to the British Crown Colony. It's also confusing if the birthplace refers to the colony and the death place refers to the sovereign country with the same phrase "Trinidad and Tobago". If we always use "Colony of Trinidad and Tobago" to refer to the colony and "Trinidad and Tobago" to refer to the sovereign country, that seems a bit less confusing. We could say that "Colony" here is not part of the name so much as a disambiguation phrase, so in principle we could write "Trinidad and Tobago (colony)" instead, but that seems a bit clunkier.
Even more important is to link the country name to the right article. For example, I link to Gran Colombia for people born there 1819-1831, because linking to Colombia gives the erroneous impression they were born in the modern state, but the two had different borders and some areas are now part of different sovereign countries (which I often add a parenthetical to identify). Both those entities were officially called "Republic of Colombia", but that's just a redirect to the modern entity, and so isn't a suitable link target.
Usually there's a separate article on the colonial period (e.g. Massachusetts Bay Colony), though in this case, Colony of Trinidad and Tobago is a redirect to History of Trinidad and Tobago. That article does use the capitalized phrase "Colony of Trinidad and Tobago", and that's the target for the incoming redirect. I do see the phrase "Colony of Trinidad and Tobago" and "Crown Colony of Trinidad and Tobago" capitalized that way in professional academic journals when I do a search on Google Scholar, though a lowercase "colony" is more common. I would infer that "Colony of Trinidad and Tobago" as a name is not incorrect, even if it is not official and not the most common form. It seems useful for disambiguation in infoboxes, but I'm open to suggestions. -- Beland (talk) 23:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
For starters, "Crown Colony of Trinidad and Tobago" is incorrect. The type of government that developed in Trinidad, and which was copied elsewhere, came to be called "crown colony government". You could apply it to Trinidad and Tobago between 1889 and roughly 1920, but it's a term political scientists and historians use. And it's problematic to draw conclusions based on capitalisation of the word "Colony", given that Victorians regularly capitalised nouns that Wikipedia would never capitalise. And if we just chose to follow contemporary usage, we'd use "colony of Trinidad", because Tobago was pretty much ignored until the 1950s.
I remember adding in this case "British Empire" to clarify that people born in Trinidad and Tobago when it was a colony have British nationality. For starters, using "British Empire" for people born outside the UK, but not people born in it makes no sense unless we think of people from "the colonies" as somehow lesser. It was normal to consider "colonials" less human in the middle of the 20th century, but it's no ok today.
Beyond that, I don't think you're clarifying anything for readers. British nationality law is complicated, and it wasn't codified until 1948, and was changed radically in 1962 (before independence). Someone born in Trinidad and Tobago before 1948, or between 1948 and April 1962 or between April and August 31 1962 presumably did not have the same legal status. And it's even worse if you're talking about Bajans or Grenadians.
Inventing an entity called the "Colony of Trinidad and Tobago, British Empire" doesn't clarify things. Instead, it's more likely to reinforce false perceptions that our readers probably have already. While "colony" isn't incorrect, it's an imprecise term that means something very different from the common understanding of the word; unlike the US, Canada, or Australia, there was no real colonisation.
Gran Colombia is a totally different entity from modern Colombia. "United Kingdom (European Union)" from "United Kingdom (Brexit)" is probably a closer comparison, though in practical terms independence less disruption than Brexit. We also don't disambiguate people born in the Fourth French Republic from those born in the Fifth French Republic, despite the differences in the country's borders.
Finally, "colony" and "empire" reinforce a lesser, subaltern position. While they are factual descriptors, using them when they aren't precisely necessary isn't good. Guettarda (talk) 03:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
How would you prefer to convey the notion "this person was born in Trinidad and Tobago and had British nationality at the time of their birth"? -- Beland (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Template:Infobox legislation

I've reverted part of your edit to {{Infobox legislation}} based on the comments at Template talk:Infobox legislation#Please restore the image function to this template. While I'm not sure that an image is helpful I really think a full discussion should be held first. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

By the way is it a feature of your talk page that I can't start a new section and have to edit the full page? More likely my browser is acting up. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
It's certainly not anything I've done intentionally to my talk page. It's a bit frustrating to have something reverted in order to have a discussion "first" when the only reason I made the change was in response to...a discussion. But such is the nature of consensus-building unless everyone is personally informed about every single proposed change. -- Beland (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Experimenting with the OpenAI API for the moss project

Hi Beland, I experimented a little to explore how the OpenAI API could be used to help with the moss project. I wrote another javascript script to extract sentences with unknown words from the last few entries of Wikipedia:Typo_Team/moss/D#Dan_-Danb and then asked the AI model to assess the unknown words and provide correction suggestions in case there is a problem. I got the following results:

I'm not sure about the first one (is it a hashtag on social media?) but the others seem to be correct. Do you think something like this could have uses for the moss project? Phlsph7 (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

This particular batch is from the "ME+" sublist, which are words that moss has identified as coMpound English words, basically two dictionary words stuck together. It's often unclear if the words should be separated or if the compound should be added to the dictionary, and determining that can take a Google Scholar or Google Books search. (Or not, if separate words sounds better and the volunteer decides it's more important to go fast than add every compound seen in the wild to Wiktionary.) I'd have to manually review whether "scverse" should be "SCVerse", if "tythingman" is a compound in British English or something, maybe put "varied" instead of "multifaceted". But these are the sorts of things that human editors do now with the moss listings, and the AI suggestions might speed that along. -- Beland (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I should also say that moss could generate suggestions for ME on its own, if we're happy with the automatic suggestion being splitting the word into the two dictionary words. It can also supply suggestions for T1, since those are potential typos that are an edit distance of 1 away from a dictionary word. Certain other sublists like TE, moss would not have obvious suggestions for, and OpenAI might be more of a help for those. -- Beland (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Formatting citations

Per WP:WHENINROME, editors should follow the existing citation style on an article. When editing an article that already uses CS1 citation templates, like Alewife station, please add any new citations with CS1 templates as well. Adding unformatted and incomplete citations, like you did with these edits, is not helpful. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it's a heck of a lot more helpful than not citing sources, or not adding content at all. Converting citation formatting is something a bot can do. -- Beland (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Why do you think this guideline does not apply to you? Someone else still has to take the time to format the citation. There is not a bot that formats citations, but there are tools you can use when you make edits, like Wikipedia:RefToolbar. Either follow the guideline and properly format your citations, or do not make the edits in the first place. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Guidelines apply equally to everyone. The question is how to respond to contributions that don't follow them all perfectly. We've accumulated thousands of rules content is supposed to follow, and it would be unreasonable for any editor to be expected to know them all. In some cases, it really is better to delete a contribution and follow up with the editor rather than leave in non-compliant content. That includes biased content, stuff that's so badly written it's unclear what it means, and unsourced claims where you don't want to seek sources yourself or tag as "citation needed".
For typos and cases of minor style violations, though, it's much better to accept the contribution and fix the issue. I don't have a problem with educating new editors in ways that could reduce the overall number of volunteer-hours needed, but I find it alarming that anyone would be going around discouraging editors from making informative, neutral, sourced contributions rather than thanking them for that content. We have a long-term problem with editor retention, and that sort of unwelcoming practice will make it worse than it needs to be. Doing the research to fill in content gaps is way more time-consuming than formatting fixes, and often requires subject-matter expertise. Chasing away editors who are doing that pushes a disproportionately large amount of work onto the remaining cadre of volunteers, and in some cases will mean that Wikipedia simply doesn't learn about certain notable facts.
I probably spent about 8 hours yesterday researching interesting facts and chasing down sources and updating Wikipedia articles. Filling out cite templates is probably the most annoying part of that process. So yes, I feel like I did my fair share of work and I gave myself permission to be a bit lazy and not add a bunch of curly braces and whatnot in footnotes where I didn't think it made a difference to anyone being able to verify the added content or get more info or add full metadata later if desired. I'm pretty sure Wikipedia:reFill will upgrade the formatting far quicker than I could do manually, so it doesn't seem like the best use of my time.
I've spent thousands of hours cleaning up contributions that have spelling errors, don't format their quote marks or dashes correctly, have HTML syntax errors, aren't wikified, don't convert to metric units, or don't use {{lang}} or {{chem}} or math markup like they are supposed to. I have never told anyone they shouldn't be making contributions if they don't have perfect spelling or don't follow the rules English Wikipedia has made up in this areas. I just fix the problems, or tag them if there are appropriate work queues and I don't have time to do it myself. Sometimes I let contributors know about the fixes I'm making if I think they could make use of that info in future edits, especially if manual cleanup is messy, and I have no problem with other editors doing the same by bringing guidelines to my attention if I'm not following them. If someone questions the fixes I'm making, I try to politely explain about and link to our guidelines. But being told that a slightly imperfect contribution is worse than no contribution at all made me feel like all the hours and deep reading I did to shape useful content was disrespected, and that's exactly how I do not want new editors to feel. I would simply ask that you extend to me and other editors the same grace that I extend to everyone. -- Beland (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
I am not saying your edits were worse than no contribution at all. However, I am saying that being a highly experienced editor does not excuse you from following this guideline. It's very frustrating to have put in the work to write a Good Article, and then have other editors make additions that don't maintain the article quality. In this case, I'm also concerned because you introduced a factual error with your edits, writing ...to supplement the only current entrance.... That does not correspond to the source, which says ...the nearest entrance/exit point.... (For the record, I count at least 7 other hi-rail access points on the line: Longfellow Bridge, Cabot Yard, Von Hillern Street, Tenean, Codman Yard, Water Street, and Caddigan Yard. An additional one at Linden Street appears to be disused.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
The instruction "follow the guideline and properly format your citations, or do not make the edits in the first place" implies to me you would have preferred I not make these edits in the first place because the citations were not properly formatted, thus no contribution at all. If that's not what you meant, that's fine, no worries.
It's certainly fair enough to be frustrated, but less-than-good-article-quality and less-than-featured-article quality contributions seem inevitable whenever there's more to say about the subject, either because we learn more over time, find better sources, or history keeps on being written about a thing that still exists. I can only hope that we will always be able to keep up with article maintenance as the world changes around us. Well, more than hope, given that I spend more time fixing other people's contributions than making my own. I usually see the other end of the process, where I start a stub that's lucky to have any citations at all, and the next time I get around to checking up on it there is magically a full article created by seven years of accretions from random editors.
I just went back to fix the formatting of my citations and address the factual claim, but it seems you have already done it, so thank you for that, and sorry I was too upset to do it when you first pointed it out.
I always appreciate a good fact-check, especially in this case as I was about to start investigating whether the MBTA should be building more hi-rail access on the south side of the Red Line. The official project page does say: "Right now, the only access tunnel for these vehicles is at Charles/MGH station." and I think I read that at some point and internalized it.
Where are you getting the info about hi-rail access at other points? I'm unable to find a list from a reliable source with a simple web search. I'm wondering if "at Charles/MGH Station" is actually referring to the access point on the Longfellow Bridge? The station is next to the bridge, but the access point is near the tunnel at the other end, probably closer to Kendall. I can confirm it's real...the Google Street View capture for August 2024 actually shows the Red Line in the middle of a shutdown, with the access gate to the westbound automobile lane open, and a hi-rail vehicle actually on the tracks headed downhill. There's a telltale track-level pad inside the gate for vehicles to make the transition. I can also see "MBTA Von Hillern Truck Pad" on Google Maps, but searching that site for "MBTA Truck Pad" shows only 8 such entries, including Water Street and some on the Orange and Green Lines. Given that shutdowns and the duration and frequency thereof have become a major local political issue lately, it would be quite interesting to have these access point documented on Red Line (MBTA). -- Beland (talk) 06:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
I found the "Tenean" site. It's actually off Conley Street, and there's a sign "Tenean Storage" that also says "Carl E. Hosea, Jr., Memorial Rail Yard". There's a bunch of hi-rail vehicles parked there. -- Beland (talk) 07:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

FYI, I have reverted your edits to Green Line (MBTA), as you added content regarding hi-rail vehicles without any references whatsoever. Turini2 (talk) 08:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

The existence of the hi-rail access points can be verified in plain sight from public places, which is one of the cases Wikipedia:Common knowledge recommends for not requiring citations. Do you have any objection to relying on that? I can chase down citations for the other claims. -- Beland (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
I would consider hi-rail access points to be technical knowledge rather than "common knowledge" - a layperson probably wouldn't be able to tell you what the thing was. Regardless, it seems a bit too much detail for a wikipedia article to include all the locations - a mention of the access points more generally with a valid reference would probably be enough. Turini2 (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Hmm, it seems pretty obvious the purpose of a gate between an automobile lane and train tracks is to allow vehicles to enter, especially when there's a special surface that tire vehicles can drive which is the same as at at-grade crossings and which doesn't appear anywhere else on the tracks. There is also usually a sign identifying the site as a truck pad, which I how I think these things end up on Google Maps. It doesn't take any technical knowledge to read a sign. -- Beland (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Fully agreed with Turini2 here on both points. For the article on the line, no more than a single cited sentence is needed. For truck pads adjacent to a station, a single cited sentence on the station article might be worthwhile. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
OK. I'm still wondering where the list of Red Line access points came from? -- Beland (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Personal knowledge, which is why it's not in the article, because I don't have a citable source available. But the citation in the Alewife station article makes it clear that the Longfellow Bridge truck pad is not the only one on the line. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Years in the Spanish West Indies

Following the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_March_11#Establishments_in_the_Spanish_West_Indies_(years), you may want to follow up with Category:Disestablishments in the Spanish West Indies. – Fayenatic London 22:09, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Well spotted, will do! -- Beland (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of List of obsolete technology for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of obsolete technology is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of obsolete technology 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 improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Interstellarity (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Scientific notation

I'm really not sure there's consensus for these sorts of edits . Especially on a mass scale with AWB. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Do you personally have a reason for preferring the scientific notation, or do you suspect other unidentified editors would have a reason? In my mind, the main precedent is that we specifically had MOS:CONVERSIONS recommend for astronomical distances e.g. "2 million ly" or "5 Mpc" over "7 × 106 ly" out of concern that some readers would find the scientific notation harder to understand. To me, it makes sense to generalize that to other STEM topics, though the rationale breaks down when the words become more obscure than the scientific notation (e.g. I'd have to look up what "quadrillion" means) or alternatives are awkward (e.g. for very small fractions).
BTW, this article Quark–gluon plasma already uses "trillion" in terms of temperature in two other places, and also uses "billion" once. For "5.5 trillion (5.5×1012) kelvin" I think the translation to scientific notation is unnecessary and should be removed to avoid clutter. -- Beland (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Do you have time to look at the typo edge cases?

Do you have time to look at the "typo team to examine" section of the database dump that you provide for copy editors to work on? It has built up a few months of backlog. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Done! -- Beland (talk) 04:03, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of those. The report is much tidier. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Moving of letter articles

Moved discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics#Titles for untypeable letters. -- Beland (talk) 04:52, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

A beer for you!

An IAR-beer. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for closing that mess. EF5 16:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Kingdom Hearts χ

Please revert your move to Kingdom Hearts Chi. Per the very policy you cited, "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage". As seen in the references, the sources on the page all use "Kingdom Hearts χ" or "Kingdom Hearts X", which should be reflected in the article titling; The Chi also does not apply to the later revision, which pronounces the χ as "Cross". This is a controversial move and should have been discussed beforehand; if it MUST be retitled, though, it should be retitled to "Kingdom Hearts X" per the cited sources. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 21:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

WP:TITLESPECIALCHARACTERS says "Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, such as Greek, Chinese, or Russian names, must be romanized". On your advice, I've moved to Kingdom Hearts X as this is in the Latin alphabet. -- Beland (talk) 21:59, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Correction: I meant to refer to WP:TRANSLITERATE. -- Beland (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)