User talk:Pilaz/Archive 1

Any source analysis that is confined only to sources used in the current version of an article is pretty much irrelevant at AfD, per

@Newimpartial: Wikipedia's notability policy (in reality a guideline) is to have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That's the GNG. You can believe that many trivial crumbs amount to GNG, but that's also unsubstantiated. In my opinion (and the one of the majority of editors), if a source alone does not count towards the GNG, then it cannot be included with other sources to make up for its deficiencies. Either a source counts towards the GNG, or it doesn't. It's been a recurring question since at least 2007, and I invite you to go through the archives of the guideline to see this debate continually resurface without resolution (fear not, your side of the argument is also represented). At any rate, I would recommend worrying about your own source analysis (or lack thereof) before worrying about the one of others. Best, Pilaz (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear: I am not under the misapprehension that the GNG doesn't require

WP:CORPDEPTH

, where the requirements operate much more in the way you describe but which have repeatedly been rejected as notability criteria outside the field of organizations.

I dare say it is more appropriate at AfD to make a global assessment of the sourcing available for a topic than it is to perform idiosyncratic source analysis based on one editor's personal interpretation of the GNG. Newimpartial (talk) 21:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: I think what you wrote is a fair representation of the debate. Since it is left up to the editors to apply the GNG one way (individual dissection of sources) or the other (global assessment of the sourcing available), on a case-by-case basis at AfD, an interpretation is required. And interpretation is inherently subjective. I'm not disputing your right to interpret it that way, I'm just disputing you calling my side of the philosophical spectrum "unsubstantiated by WP policy". Neither is; it is simply the GNG that is silent on the way to do source analysis. I'm sure two opposing essays could be written on the issue. Pilaz (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I want to applaud you for your vote on this article. I think we need to avoid any claim that any head of a secondary school is default notable. I feel we have been far too willing to grant default notability to heads of tertiary schools, but secondary schools are clearly a no go.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Johnpacklambert for the kind words. The red flag is always the word "prestigious" for me. Prestige is a social construct which is inherently contextual, subjective, and only understood within the realm of social stratification. The GNG is the only valid "prestige" test in my opinion. I also agree that secondary school heads should generally not be on Wikipedia, with the exception of those rare ones who meet BIO from a variety of sources, not just local. Pilaz (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The other exception may be people who did other notable things who either later or earlier were heads of secondary schools. There may be some exceptions for founders/heads of secondary schools that later became tertirary institutions, but I have seen a few such cases where we have an article only sourced to the institutions own publication and nothing to suggest that the person would meet any other notability guidelines. A few of these are probably prime candidates for deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Of course, if they do notable things and coverage follows, that's a different question. There are certainly others, and now that Who's Who UK is at RSN, I wonder how many pages are only sourced to that biographical compendium. Happy to help, if needed. Pilaz (talk) 00:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For the excellent work you have put in so far with ☖ 06:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, MJL, that's really kind of you! Pilaz (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

United Nations in popular culture, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its

grading scheme

to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now

create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation

if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to

create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation

.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

>>> Ingenuity.talk(); 15:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

If you check the DYK examples on the mainpage, your hook should have a link to your article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the tips, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, regarding the DYK process. Regarding the LGBT characters list, I currently lack the time and expertise to make the LGBT character become prose or to create a parallel article that quotes the main works on the topic. It could certainly be done thanks to the sources listed in the "additional readings", though. I don't think I can get a DYK nomination in on time, but I'll keep it in mind for a future article. Thank you! Pilaz (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Whatever you feel is best. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Missed your comment until the AfD closed and wanted to clarify mine. I have no issue with your nom, it was absolutely valid as she isn't at all notable. I meant I hate the solution of redirecting a woman to her family, but in this case it was better outcome than deletion, even though I'm not sure she's a likely search. Star Mississippi 22:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: Ah, I understand better now - and I agree with you regarding the redirection to the family, which I also am not a fan of, given that women don't inherit titles. Thanks for the clarification! Pilaz (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

any time. As someone said at a similar AfD, the problem isn't the deletion/redirection so much as the initial creation of someone who stands almost no chance of notability.I wish in general we waiting for someone to do something vs. creating an article in anticipation that they might. Have a good day! Star Mississippi 02:45, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I've noticed that you've been exploring the notability of this woman and her immediate family. They were the subject of a 2015 documentary called The Last Dukes (which can be seen on YouTube). The Duchess herself is a sort of entrepreneurial type and there are some interviews with her outside of it if this helps establish her notability. She effectively administers Belvoir Castle and various movie filmings and weddings there are her brainchild. If you find this noteworthy, let me know. I don't think the daughters are independently all that notable but I'd make a case for her. The duke himself is a tossup for me. --Killuminator (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Killuminator for bringing that to my attention, that's a source I would have otherwise missed. I also believe the daughters to be below the threshold of notability, and the duke himself is also on the edge for me. Planning to do a thorough check this weekend, so I'll let you know what I think regarding the duchess. Pilaz (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I have read your message. What exactly would you like to know? I would have thought that the reason for adding a book review was perfectly obvious. James500 (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@

edit summary. "Add" as an edit summary is really lacking, since it forces me to review every single edit of yours, including the uncontroversial cosmetic edits. Could you better summarize what you do in each edit? It would save other editors a lot of time and probably better help explain why you are making the changes in question, which would also result in fewer edit disputes and reverts. Thank you. Pilaz (talk

) 00:09, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I see. I will do that. James500 (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@James500: Thank you James. For the record, I think your edits were absolutely genuine and you made a good job in giving edit summaries to your most controversial ones. And if you're looking for inspiration: for non-controversial cosmetic/copyediting edits, I tag them as minor and write "ce" in the edit summary; for non-minor edits, I try to explain why I do the things I do. Cheers! Pilaz (talk) 00:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

now restored to you userspace for the time being. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@

Draft:United Nations in popular culture. Pilaz (talk

) 12:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

You used some language from it, unless it's things you previous added to the deleted version yourself, we may need to keep it for attribution. One way I can do that is to move it to a variant title and make it a redirect. Any suggestions? DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@DGG: Thanks for checking.The only paragraph that is partially transcluded is about the reviews to the Interpreter (which I wrote) - see diffs [1], [2]. I also wrote [3] but took no inspiration from it to write the entry for the film in the Draft article. As for a potential redirect name: how about "UN in popular culture"? Pilaz (talk) 07:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Good choice- it's a resonable look-up term;; let me know when ready for mainspace. `` DGG ( talk ) 10:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@DGG: United Nations in popular culture is now in mainspace after a super speedy draft review at AFC. Pilaz (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@

UN in popular culture (a redirect), now that United Nations in popular culture is back in mainspace as a completely rewritten article? Thank you. Pilaz (talk

) 00:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

By any chance did you see my reply to you at Wikipedia talk:Formatting bilateral relations articles back in January of this year? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I just read User:Pilaz/Don't use obituaries to determine notability, which must be an early draft. Obviously the acid test in the GNG is that someone needs to have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. There is no prejudice there against obituaries, so long as they comply with those three rules. The main thing worth analysing is surely which sources are reliable and independent. I agree with you that the NYT and BBC are, and that family-written public notices are not. It does seem to me though that the title of the essay has a built-in prejudice against obituaries, which very often are the most substantial and coherent coverage of a notable life. What matters is not whether the piece is an obituary, but what the nature of the publication is. Moonraker (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I saw your comment that the position of Deputy Lieutenant is “only an honorary position”. That is mistaken. DLs are appointed to take a share in the work of their Lord Lieutenant, mostly just attending events, but sometimes attending royal visits, awarding medals, and so on. In itself, being a DL is not a guarantee of notability, but most people chosen as DLs are in fact distinguished in some way, as on many occasions they will need to represent the monarch, so many DLs do in fact comply with

Notability with Wikipedia is determined by meeting the

WP:GNG. Additionally, SNGs are indicators of notability, on a case-by-case basis. There is no SNG for DLs, meaning that the default for DLs is the GNG. Many do not meet the GNG, which helps explain why there is no SNG for them in the first place, and why we have deleted many DL articles in the past. Pilaz (talk

) 16:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Pilaz, I agree with the technical side of what you say, and I would not want DLs to have a free pass to notability, like members of parliament. But my main points still stand. (1), DL is not an honorary post, real duties of representing the monarch go with it, something to bear in mind. (2) Because of that, most DLs are in fact quite distinguished people, so it is a pointer that they are likely to be notable, if the sources are looked for, rather than the reverse. Moonraker (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps, going back to your original comment, the proper term would be "only a ceremonial position", rather than honorary. As to their notability, it would be a pointer if en-wiki adopted it as an SNG. However, to reiterate, no such SNG exists, and articles of DLs have routinely been deleted at AfD: examples include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Charles Stronge, 7th Baronet, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir James Stronge, 2nd Baronet, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Birdwood, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane Williams, Baroness Williams of Elvel, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Hext, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr Paul Knapman, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commander Herbert Roff Newton, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Philip Grey Egerton, 11th Baronet. This is normal due to the sheer number of DLs: in East Sussex county alone, where 850,000 live, there can be up to 49 DLs. If one scales this to the UK population, one gets potentially 3000 DLs - many of which have not received the kind of coverage required by the GNG, and most likely never will. Pilaz (talk) 00:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi! You rescued this article on AfD - would you like now to rewrite it? Its current text is in no way an encyclopedic article. Wikisaurus (talk) 12:55, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

@Wikisaurus: I can help add the few sources that I found during the AfD search process. Do you think a structure similar to Guinea–Spain relations would work here? Pilaz (talk) 00:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Can you give the correct link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Austro-Italian_border In ictu oculi (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: It's co-nominated with Franco-German border at MR, which is what I tried to indicate in the first sentence. The editors and closer are the same, the close uses the exact same rationale, and the messages are exact replicas to the word. Pilaz (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk

) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Merry Merry!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2023!

Hello, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2023. Happy editing, Davidgoodheart (talk) 14:53, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

Hey there, I just wanted to stop to thank you. You noticed my copyvio problem early last year, and I want to say thank you because you stopped me from engaging in some really bad behavior that I had never stopped to consider just how bad it was. I have been going through the CCI pages in reverse from page 10 back to the first page since then, and I'm in the first half of page 3 at this point. It's slow going, but I have many thousands of edits to go through. :) I'm taking a better safe than sorry approach with rewriting. I hope I'm getting it right. BOZ (talk) 14:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey there! It's really great that you've taken all this time to remove copyvio problems. Hopefully you don't mind if I try to tackle the Appelcline references first, since I have them on hand? Cheers! Pilaz (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to do the initial work for each article on my own as much as possible, since I feel it's my mess to fix, but if you want to go back over anything from subpages 4 to 10 to make sure I fixed everything sufficiently I would greatly appreciate that. :) There were plenty of Appelcline references throughout my edits. I'm planning to work on pages 2321 to 2360 today, as time allows. BOZ (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk

) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

		Citation Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to Pilaz for collecting more than 25 points during the FEB24 backlog drive. Your contributions played a crucial role in sourcing 14,300 unsourced articles during the drive. Thank you so much for participating and helping to reduce the backlog! – – DreamRimmer (talk ) 18:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi there :) Concerning this edit, why specifying French and Italian for the pronunciation? Since this toponym exists in French only, any speaker of any language should pronounce it as it indicated, in French, so what's the point of specifying French, Italian? Simoncik84 (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Simoncik84: That's a good question, but basically the idea is to show how it's pronounced by French speakers and Italian speakers. Originally I wanted to show the "French" pronunciation of the official toponym, with the /ʁ/ sound (as in regarder), and also include the /r/ sound in second position since it's quite common to hear Charvensod pronounced that way by Italian speakers... what do you think? Pilaz (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Regardless, I'm not deeply attached to the inclusion of "French" or "Italian", so if you'd rather have those removed, feel free to be

WP:BOLD. I was mostly replicating what I saw for other articles like Moscow or Munich. Pilaz (talk

) 20:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Pilaz, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:

• Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions
• Consider joining the NPP Discord to chat with your fellow reviewers in real-time
• If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
• If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at

Thanks for offering to help out! While you're otherwise clearly (over)qualified for NPP, I do have to say that your actions around User talk:Atchom#Alan William Shave moved to draftspace and User talk:Atchom#Do not add Who's Who's (UK) gave me major pause. Overuse of draftify is probably the number one mistake new NPPers make and one of the most common reasons for revoking the right. Using it over disputably reliable sources—regardless of who's right about the sources in the end—and when you know the creator will object, would qualify as "overuse" in my book. If you'll take my advice, try steer clear of draftify entirely when patrolling new pages – it's not as useful as it may seem at first.

Regarding

WP:NPPSCHOOL, I wouldn't bother. An experienced editor like you will know all the basics already and the rest will get filled in as you go. – Joe (talk

) 08:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: Hi Joe, thank you for the opportunity and the links. With respect to draftify, I have changed my mind with respect to it in the way that you suggest - it's best to bring the matter to AfD when reviewing new pages that clearly don't meet the criteria for GNG. In the case of Atchom two years ago, he was introducing articles to mainspace which were below the threshold required by the GNG, since they all solely including one source (the GNG demands multiple). At the time, it seemed to me that Draftify could give him the chance to meet the AFC criteria without demanding the community's attention at AfD, and it seems to me now that I could have just tagged those pages for notability and circled around later to see if they were still in demand of more sources before sending them to AfD at a later time (AfD is a very time-consuming endeavor, especially if one is the nominator and engages in a thorough BEFORE).

Obviously this would be different with respect to the NPP process because the workflow prioritizes AfD over draftify, and I will follow it to the best of my ability. With that being said, Atchom was introducing articles with a generally unreliable source (Who's Who UK), and on that point the community consensus hasn't changed, and despite multiple reminders he was still pushing edits with the source, which to me appeared to be disruptive behavior, hence the final reminder. Luckily things smoothed out after discussion, as they usually do.

At any rate, your point is well taken, and I will steer clear of draftifying entirely when patrolling new pages as you suggest, and fully agree with your motivation behind this recommendation. Draftifying is usually less transparent than AfD and prone to more belligerence. Pilaz (talk) 11:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)