User talk: Red Slash

Template:Fake dubious has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had removed a question I asked on the Farux move review because it didn't pertain to whether Paine's actions were to be overturned, so I'll ask over here. If the review moves the article back to Farux, but I open a new RM to directly discuss the X vs. kh issue (one of Paine's counterarguments being that it wasn't directly demonstrated that the RM participants disliked the X spelling) and it becomes clear that the new RM's participants didn't like the X spelling but still cannot agree on "Parukh" or "Farukh" (or "Farrukh"; that also appeared in the original RM), would the

@Mellohi!: Sorry for the delayed response! My interpretation of WP:NOGOODOPTIONS would be that yes, if everyone hates a certain title, then the move request should end up moving it somewhere and that then we should be sure that the next RM reaches a consensus.

Also, out of curiosity, how long have you been at Wikipedia?

WP:TROUT is one of the oldest memes we've got; it may not be commonly understood in 2022! Whoops! Red Slash 21:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

Chris Noble 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/Chris Noble 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.

Bgsu98 (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the care that you have evidently put into your closing statement at

I take no offense whatsoever at your comment. I hope the same is true for you with mine. I hope you have a spectacular day. Red Slash 21:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found your closure summary to be a very entertaining read. Great job! 😁👍  Tewdar  21:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you move this page? There was one support and two people who expressed doubts, and zero reliable sources using the new name. No consensus does not mean "move the page". —Kusma (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no minimum requirement for participation. Two people "expressing doubts" doesn't mean they've opposed it, and an unopposed move request will almost always be carried out. Red Slash 17:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I opposed. —Kusma (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Than you for renaming Odessa -> Odesa! A1 (talk) 12:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply ]

Thank you so much! This is probably my all-time best moment as a Wikipedian. But I did just what everyone does every day--do the best we can to impartially express the verifiable data we've got. Thank you!! Red Slash 22:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion at Talk:Valley of Strathmore#Requested move 14 September 2022 is an interesting case where like with Sarah Jane Brown it was difficult to qualify it so using a natural disambiguation was chosen. I don't think though it was problematic even choosing natural disambiguation anyway since the Gazetteer for Scotland prefers the longer name. There was also a similar discussion at Talk:Handa Island. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's a pretty elegant solution to a very difficult problem. Nicely done, sir! Red Slash 21:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They say not to template regulars, so consider this a level-1 warning. I'd consider this vandalism coming from a new user, and with the most AGF I can muster it's still deliberate introduction of a factual error. You introduced material you knew you couldn't substantiate, and it's clear you didn't do the most rudimentary research like, you know, googling the word. If it was just the comment on the talk I'd get that you were trying to be funny, but actually adding it in the main namespace defies explanation. I hope it won't happen again. Nardog (talk) 07:32, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

You wrote at Talk:AOC (disambiguation) that "no compelling argument was made whatsoever about long-term significance". Maybe you missed my comment that said:

"a huge amount of people are aware of AOC monitors, as they're mass-produced and sold worldwide. If there was a brand of consumer products like 'JFK' that was already common in the 1940s, that would be an issue there, too."

Nobody responded to that actually. (I guess it got lost in the weirdness of the rest of that thread.) Certainly I can understand if you didn't find this argument compelling, but I'd appreciate it if you could phrase it in a way other than one that implies that there was no argument made whatsoever. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• That's fair. People being aware of the existence of something else that is abbreviated to AOC, I didn't consider that compelling, but I can edit it, for sure. Did not mean to be disrespectful, @Joy: Red Slash 17:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

create an improbable redirect? 🤔 – robertsky (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have page deletion rights, so I do that every time I have perform an RM like this. Red Slash 19:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But you have pagemover user rights! Haha. Of which you can swap pages without leaving redirects. – robertsky (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	For writing WP:NOGOODOPTIONS; it and Wikipedia:Bartender's closing provide excellent advice - I hadn't realized that you wrote the former. BilledMammal (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply ]

Thanks so much!! I throw a lot of stuff at the wall, and sometimes it sticks I'd never heard of the bartender page before, but I love it (and BD2414 is an excellent editor!). Thank you, I really appreciate it! Red Slash 00:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How about add a subRFC (or two) for the pending copy edits, might as well get them approved at same time? Selfstudier (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I would know how to do that, exactly. I have been avoiding the RfC for a few days to preserve my sanity () but I can take a peek. Thank you for the idea. Red Slash 22:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the question at the RFC because it seems better to me to try and avoid the outcome which is basically start over and get a better wording first. I suppose it depends on how attached one is to the existing text and/or what one is willing to change right now for a peaceful life? Selfstudier (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, the proposed text is that way for a reason. I don't have the power to overturn everyone else's consensus that has been there for quite some time. But we can absolutely put up a sub-RfC. Red Slash 23:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, maybe try it and see how far it gets, it doesn't need to be rfc tagged like a full RFC, just indent a sub heading between !votes and discussion, called idk, Discussion re alternative texts or something like that, and ask the questions "Should 1)'blah' 2) etc be included/changed/replaced" (might have to ping everyone who responded already). Could get complicated, what do you think? Selfstudier (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Take the hatted comments and write them as a Comment before your !vote or include it in your !vote (I know, bureaucracy). Selfstudier (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not happy with your closure comments per

Frankly, the fact that those joining via RM were all ignorant of article naming policy (specifically NAMECHANGES) makes me never want to touch that part of WP with a bargepole. The name change is not in fact, in reality, in the real world, controversial, though that may surprise you. For that reason, RM guidelines explicitly state RM should not be used. It only became "controversial" because some folk at RM got their nose out of joint. Which is pathetic and just wasted the time of good editors. -- Colin°^Talk 10:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I came here to make a similar complaint, not knowing that Colin had already commented. Those closing comments were out of order in that you expressed your opinion. If you felt so strongly you should have joined the discussion. Graham Beards (talk) 10:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm super confused regarding this. None of what I expressed was my own opinion and all of it was expressed in the discussion. One exception, I guess: I expressed that I was ''surprised", sure, but that's kind of the point of evidence, to convince someone.

The longstanding title being the "default" is longstanding policy, going as far back as WP:BRD, and it's a moot point anyway because consensus was formed for "mpox".

That move requests should be filed through WP:RM is not a hot take and was mentioned many times in the discussion. Common name is of course "tempered" by NAMECHANGES, as per arguments you yourself made! Gall, are you trying to critique that I reworded what you yourself wrote? And I specifically did not express an opinion on the lead sentence, but recommended that a discussion continue. "Oh no, recommending discussion on Wikipedia? How dare he!"

I guess I just don't see--after reading this several times--how in the world I possibly could've irked you. What, are you upset for my statement that requested moves should be filed at Wikipedia:Requested moves? Red Slash 17:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Open up the page

WP:NAMECHANGES

) is part of the overall section on common names. Slap face with palm of hand. It isn't "tempered" by that; it is part of that. When someone cites WP:COMMONNAME, especially someone coming from RM noticeboard or closing an RM, I expect them to know this. And I'd I expect editors to not need it pointed out that if a name was changed, old sources wouldn't miraculously use a name that was only invented Autumn 2022.

You also expressed an opinion that was dismissive of the longrunning discussion that started 28 November 2022 and was enacted by admin SilkTork confirming consensus to move on 28 January 2023. You can't just pretend that didn't happen or wasn't valid. That a month later someone who admitted to being unaware of the previous discussion, thought it should be moved back to the old name, is a new request. A "no consensus" result on that would mean they failed. Btw, anyone who thinks "WP:BRD" is "policy" has no place closing any discussions. I shall enquire where we do from here. -- Colin°^Talk 18:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really struggling here. I feel like you're mostly just upset at the fact that an RM was filed at all. And okay, I get that, but IDK what you are intending to gain by trying to take it out on me. You have written a lot and yet I have to lament once again: I have no idea what your actual problem is. and obviously Wikipedia:Consensus is the policy which is explained by BRD, which normally a person wouldn't have to explicitly explain, but I am getting a little salty at these suggestions that I don't know what I am talking about. And either you don't understand what "tempered" means or I don't, but the idea that a subsection of COMMONNAME can't modify COMMONNAME because it's a subsection of COMMONNAME is weird and pedantic. Red Slash 18:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Colin. You have made right mess. Saying an opening sentence requires further discussion, ("I strongly recommend a full discussion on the wording of the lead sentence, specifically regarding how the word "monkeypox" should be included") is an opinion! It's tantamount to saying it's bad. Saying that the name monkepox being offensive is debatable is your opinion. Saying "That discussion should've been an RM" is your opinion. And as for "much much much much much to my surprise" - I'm lost for words. Who are you? A an expert on naming diseases? You expressed your opinions and then closed the discussion. What would have happened if I had done that? This is the most incompetent closure I have seen in my fifteen-years plus time here. Graham Beards (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait... are you saying that expressing any opinions in a closure is bad?? What?? How in the world is anyone supposed to judge a consensus without saying an opinion? Can you please find any move closure that does not include an opinion? (Note: "There was no consensus to move" is an opinion. "[There was a consensus to] move" is an opinion. "[There was a consensus to have] no move" is an opinion. What, are you suggesting that there's somehow an objective way to judge consensus??) Red Slash 19:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You expressed opinions about the article! You hardly said anything about the long discussion. You got it wrong and you messed up.Graham Beards (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly said anything about the discussion because the discussion was extremely one-sided--one side had sources to back its assertions, and the other side made assertions with no evidentiary support, so after I said that and closed it in favor of your side, there wasn't much else to say. I thought I was doing Colin a favor by pointing out what I thought was a really cool editorial discussion that--I'll be honest--I was concerned might get buried in the now-closed move request.

Anyway, looking over it, I've removed a couple of statements that I only included to calm anyone's concerns that I wasn't taking the "pro-monkey" side seriously. Hopefully you're a little happier now. Red Slash 19:20, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't supposed to express your opinion about the name. For crying out loud. I bolded the relevant guidance above. And yes I agree with Graham that your comments about the lead sentence demonstrate more that you seem to want to waste editors time than that you carefully read the discussion, where you'd find dozens of sources cited that make that lead sentence not only pass

WP:NAMECHANGES is all really that needed to be said. The rest was just a hot-head on the internet ranting. -- Colin°^Talk 19:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

RedSlash, keep the "The result of the move request was: Not moved (in other words, it stays at Mpox)." paragraph and the one currenty starting "fourth". None of the others belong in any shape or form. This isn't AN/I so it isn't your place to use an RM to lecture editors. You are there to state the closing decision and explain the reason. The reason is NAMECHANGES and the cited evidence supporting that and the lack of evidence supporting the contrary. End of. The rest is just you ranting. Do that, and I'll be very happy thank you. Colin°^Talk 19:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first three belong because I'm making clear to the supporters that I read and understand both their procedural objections as well as their objections to the "offensive" argument. The fifth is for clarity, because Barrelproof linked that other RM and I decided not to close it. The sixth is because you held a huge long discussion about the lead sentence in the middle of a requested move, which is not an ideal place for that discussion because people will later tend to skim over that, thinking that the whole discussion is just about the requested move. It's a bad idea. It's like if you were to text your spouse:

"Remember to buy eggs, tortillas, cheese, and ham at the grocery store, we're getting evicted on Sunday, and please don't forget to pick up the dry cleaning"

It's going to be pretty easy for that bit in the middle to be overlooked. (And yes, you're right, I only briefly skimmed that discussion because it's not relevant to the requested move. So why in the world would I pronounce a "winner" in that discussion?) Red Slash 21:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We only had a discussion about the sentence in the middle because someone said hold on, we should have a discussion about that. Which was frankly at that point, just another participant who hadn't read what had already been presented, and just jumped in with their own opinion. Your "I strongly recommend a full discussion on the wording of the lead sentence" is still there. Just what on earth do you think that "full discussion" will achieve? We're talking four words of article text, and I could cite forty sources all explicitly backing that up. Why on earth do you think that needs more discussion? So I can read more ignorant comments on the internet by people who appear to neither read the news nor have access to Google. As for the other arguments, it is clear you still don't understand how to close a discussion.

Can you please, for goodness sake, remove your strongly recommend. It is entirely disruptive. -- Colin°^Talk 23:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I won't. I'm allowed to make recommendations as an editor--this had nothing whatsoever to do with the closing of the move. Holy cow dude, if you want to ignore that recommendation just ignore it, what the heck do you care what I recommend? Red Slash 00:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if someone makes a fuss on that page about the lead sentence, and cites your closing remark, I will be sure to include the words "willfully disruptive" in my response when complaining about your closure, because you have plenty information right now to change it and you choose not to. -- Colin°^Talk 07:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)::::::::Thanks for the concession. I am not happier but a little less annoyed. The problem is we had to get this right because it involves other articles. One discussion about the renaming the outbreak has been placed on hold awaiting the closure. A competent closure would have allowed us to say "this has all been resolved at Mpox". We can't do that now without concerns about it "not counting" because the closure was inept. Graham Beards (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I get that. That makes sense. Don't misunderstand me--I don't think you're crazy or anything and that's a reasonable concern--but like, I really don't think anyone's going to look at the Mpox closing that way. Don't worry about it. Feel free to say "this has all been resolved at Mpox". There was a strong consensus to keep the page at the short name, which was recognized in the closure. That's it, that's all that matters. Red Slash 21:34, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen two bigger malcontents whine about a discussion that actually closed in their favor. This is beyond petty. ValarianB (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ValariantB, you didn't exactly shine in that debate yourself. -- Colin°^Talk 21:12, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to have some grace; it's been helpful to see the very real concerns that they have, and assuming the best of them. Red Slash 21:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Despite your patronizing editorial comments, you made the correct decision on the name and so I am happy to assume good faith and move on. I suspect this RM discussion will be linked in the future as good example of how not to close a discussion. Graham Beards (talk) 10:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The closing comments are clearly biased. Calling other editors "blind" is beyond childish and, IMO, totally invalidates the entire discussion as a whole.

WP:SUPERVOTE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't think you'd stand any realistic chance of arguing that the actual decision was not following consensus and policy. But I agree with you that insulting those who voted the against the outcome is unacceptable. -- Colin°^Talk 12:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The usage of biased language in every part of the closure makes it dubious whether it was following consensus OR policy. I am not an admin, so it's not my job to fully analyze the discussion, but I have no way to trust that Slash did either. The best thing they could do is apologize and reopen the discussion for an admin to close per

WP:NACD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I hope you realize that your link is to the deletion process. Red Slash 21:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well now you've literally suggested I called editors "blind" when I quite simply did not. "Blind assertions" mean assertions not backed up with facts or evidence, it doesn't mean that the editor themselves is somehow "blind". I didn't insult anyone. This is getting ridiculous. Red Slash 15:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Red Slash. I'm sorry this RM has been so contentious and time-consuming. I think your close was right based on the evidence before you, but I too was surprised at your comment in your closing summary saying

WP:RM itself says A title may be disputed, and discussion may be necessary to reach consensus [...] The requested moves process is not mandatory, and sometimes an informal discussion at the article's talk page can help reach consensus. I note an administrator has since clarified this at Talk:Mpox#Comment_on_closure

. I would think it better if workload on RM was reduced by having more Talk page discussions happening to resolve issues at an earlier stage!

Zxcvbnm, an admin has now confirmed Red Slash's decision. I hope that satisfies any concerns you have with respect to process and you can now reflect on the decision. Bondegezou (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this was never meant to be so contentious. A requested move (through the formal RM process) would've definitely been better because A) an RM was inevitable anyway and B) it would've opened up discussion to the community at large, much like an RfC. That's why I said it "should've" been an RM. I didn't say "needed to be" because I didn't mean "needed to be"; I meant "should've been". But I get that people interpreted that as me saying that a discussion apart from the formal process was somehow invalid, and that's on me, so I've reworded that. Red Slash 21:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was the pointless RM that caused the problems and wasted an awful lot of time, all because its instigator didn't even notice the discussion that had already taken place. What would be good is if Wikipedia editors weren't so careless. Bon courage (talk) 04:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two quick comments here. First, something fishy is going on with the close template - I don't think it's got the end part, since it's absorbing the discussion below. Secondly, while I'm not interested in contesting the close, I would like to encourage you to temper your comment, particularly the somewhat dismissive "(of course) ... by far", regarding 'Arab' as alternative terminology. This does not seem reflective of the evidence presented. Perhaps you missed the case de-sensitized Ngrams, because the original Ngrams notably omitted "Arab Conquest of Spain" (fully capitalized), which relates to perhaps the single, most seminal work on the subject (and source of a third of the in-line references). In fact, if one requires caps, in a proper name title sense, the situation quickly reverses. The discussion also elaborated considerably on this terminology.

The template thing has been fixed now, so scratch that part.

Iskandar323 (talk) 13:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Well said, thank you. I appreciate your input. I had originally said that there was a strong consensus for Muslim over Umayyad but you're right, there wasn't a strong, evidence-backed conclusive consensus about Muslim over Arab.

I've now edited the close. Thank you again. Red Slash 15:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a Move review of Grey Goose (vodka). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, why would you post a move review without discussion with the closer? Red Slash 21:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was already a discussion with one of the closers. How many closers do I need to consult with before we can get a wider look at the situation? —Locke Cole • t • c 02:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One. Only with the closer who did the close that you're actually challenging and which the review is about. This is obviously RedSlashes (re)close, and not the original close, which you don't challenge and explicitly agree with. Logically, this will be the performer of the last close that still stands, so that the review can lead to an actionable outcome (potential overturning). Challenging a self-reverted close is moot anyway, and there would not be a need to notify any such prior closers. If something can't be overturned, it needn't be reviewed. —Alalch E. 08:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It really makes me question the wisdom of

WP:NAC if someone can just oppose the closure, and in the span of a few hours, convince the inexperienced adjudicator to self-revert and let someone else make the decision. What a shitshow. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

bruh people self-revert closures all the time, admins and not alike Red Slash 16:19, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well I spent the better part of a month monitoring that discussion, being happy to see it relisted and gain a support !vote (which to me should have pushed the needle just enough to make it a weak consensus just on pure vote count, and a consensus if you weight !votes based on arguments). I saw the initial close and the initial request at

WP:RMTR, then went about my day just to come back later to find that nearly a months work was flushed because of forum shopping. Thanks. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, and if you'd just explained that to me like you were required to, I'd have closed it as moved. I hate when people reject a move (that was duly closed!) at

WP:RMTR and I would've procedurally closed it as moved without even looking for a consensus. I knew none of that and you just... up and dropped a move review without even discussing it with me. Red Slash 05:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I mean I explained the problem at the move review. I thought the initial reversion was enough to base that on. Either way, apparently it's over and done with now. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:38, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel your frustration with the process. Trust me, I know all about how frustrating it is to pour your heart into a move request and then get shot down by the closer. Happens to me all the time =/ Hopefully you can re-raise the idea later on down the line. (If you'll look carefully, in two of those three I linked, my side eventually did end up winning years down the road, because as much as inertia, ignorance, and poor closes can get in the way, ultimately better arguments do usually prevail here. Usually.) Red Slash 06:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for what it's worth, this happened, so maybe what happened was for the best. I'd have felt a little off knowing someone abusing multiple accounts closed that RM... —Locke Cole • t • c 07:16, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Locke Cole: It's been a few days, and the second RM is probably too procedurally contested to work. I am the only support !vote. If you prefer withdrawing instead of seeing this be closed by someone else, but can't because of my comment, I can strike it. —Alalch E. 11:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How in the world was I supposed to know that such a discussion had taken place? Red Slash 15:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be the first to throw a pitchfork: that was the most blatant supervote I've seen in a while. Why do we need editors deliberating and weighing criteria, why do we need specialized naming conventions, when you can decide it all on your own? I acknowledge you're a smart and knowledgeable guy, but... c'mon... please undo that closure.

Hi Red Slash, No such user and I were on opposite sides of the debate, so I hope you will take seriously my showing up here attempting to recast the criticism as constructively as possible. Please graciously overlook No such user's tone, and consider very earnestly the suggestion that your summary of how the criteria apply to this case may be better / more helpfully placed as a vote rather than a close. Or, if you're inclined to decline (or perhaps even if you accept), I think a helpful thing you could do to make your assessment more complete is to add a couple sentences about the naming convention and what part it plays in your understanding of the discussion. Thank you for your service to these articles. Adumbrativus (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I don't believe I voted? I didn't have an opinion on the move itself, which is why I felt pretty good about performing closing instead. I don't know how much clearer I could be. Article titles are determined based on criteria at WP:Article titles. There are five main criteria that were all brought up and debated throughout the RM. Four of them were hotly contested, with equally good arguments on each side. One of them was proven to be in favor of one side of the debate. I just... don't get where the issue is. Red Slash 23:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, sorry for my non-acknowledgement of your response while I was away. Belatedly I just want to say I greatly appreciate your engagement with the rest of the commenters here. Thank you for your clarifications. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

... I'm not sure what you're expressing. (Though I definitely don't take offense!) I read the discussion and summarized the consensus in the close of the move. Did I make a mistake in my analysis? Did I need to explain that we use

WP:AT to make decisions, and so all the arguments that were based on it were analyzed. All the major rules had equally strong arguments on each side, except for one, which was very much against the move. All the reasons I posted were taken directly from the discussion, and it seemed pretty no-brainer to me. Which policy was in favor of the move at Talk:Alfonso XII? Red Slash 21:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not going to contest your closure (I'll leave that to the others who've commented here if they so choose, mainly because I don't see a chance for consensus to develop), but I just wanted to point out a couple things.

First,

Alfonso XII of Spain

.

I also take issue with ngrams being used to demonstrate

WP:COMMONNAME here. I would imagine at least a large part of those results which showed more results for "Alfonso XII" compared to "Alfonso XII of Spain", the usage of the former was always given with some context, with some mention of Alfonso's role. Estar8806 (talk) 03:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I mean, people definitely blindly asserted that people familiar with Spain wouldn't recognize a title like "Alfonso XII" as an article about a Spanish king, but their assertions weren't convincing. There was a whole boatload of

"I mean, I don't recognize that Alfonso XII is referring to a royal from Spain"

, but like, sorry, one editor's lack of recognizance doesn't really mean much.

No such user, who's a fantastic editor, went and said "The Alfonsos are not household names"; I don't get the significance (WP:RECOGNIZABLE doesn't require something to be a "household name") or the validity (you sure they're not commonly known by those familiar with Spanish royals?) of that assertion. When it was challenged, No such user responded with "How many people would know who were Alfonso XII and XIII? Do you want me to conduct a survey of people on the street and publish it in a scientific journal so as to have a "reliable source"?" And I'm not intending to pick on him; there were a couple editors saying things like that! Do you see how people just randomly asserting things... fails to convince a closer? Do you see how the the claims to better recognizability were argued to be a nonfactor?

Finally, with respect you may well take issue with ngrams being used to demonstrate WP:COMMONNAME, and you may even be right! But unless I'm mistaken, you didn't take issue to them during the move request, so I daresay you can hardly blame me for not having taken your issues into account. Red Slash 08:03, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope my tone was received as intended -- as a friendly banter.
But seriously, we have a specialized naming convention,

No such user (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I have to agree with

No such user here: whilst well-intentioned, I do think the close was wrong, and that it should be overturned. I did support the move, but I think that, even if I did oppose it, I would still find the close problematic. Regards, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

NCROY was asserted to be, uhh... not particularly well-followed on Wikipedia. There was a very, very spirited discussion on that, which you took part in. Ultimately, the phrase from NCROY--"Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis"--pretty much dooms NCROY from being used as a unilateral cudgel.

If you like, I easily could rewrite the close to begin with "NC:ROY is an important guideline that prescribes the title

Alfonso XII of Spain

et al. However, NC:ROY also includes the important exception: 'Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis'. It was argued in the move request whether this case contained a basis to not move the four articles. The argument went as follows: ....."

I'm not even being snarky with this; you're right, I should've explicitly made clear how the case-by-case exception makes it very difficult to apply that standard format. Honestly, I should've closed it differently, you're convincing me. I'm reclosing it now, making clear that the real issue isn't the five criteria but rather, once the five criteria have been weighed and found to be against the move (which I'm not exactly retracting; I do stand behind that analysis), is this an exception to NCROY? Most of the discussion did not actually center on that, so it's only fair to say no consensus. Red Slash 17:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see

You have recently edited a page related to

contentious

. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the

Ctopics/aware

}} template.

Bon courage (talk) 06:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Red Slash! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Bon courage (talk) 06:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, would you mind undoing your RM close and possibly !voting instead? The way you've closed and worded your closing comes off as a super-vote given how close the discussion was. SportingFlyer T·C 00:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved admin, I think this close is correct, but might have counseled against a non-admin close for such a closely contested discussion. BD2412 T 01:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reaching out!

My process looking at the move was analyzing the arguments, one by one, and seeing whether there was a consensus for those arguments that was backed in policy.

1. "Nothing has changed, so don't move" was quickly answered by the very next commenter, who pointed out that there has never been a consensus for the status quo

2. "Wikinav data is compelling" - no response given other than your "I'm actually surprised how low the click-thru numbers are for the 'primary' topic" which, while true, only mitigates the argument and does not refute it. "A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term"; 59% is less than some other primary topics to be sure, but it's certainly high enough to satisfy

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC

.

3. "No primary topic between the act and the product vis a vis educational significance" - highly compelling argument against the move that was never directly refuted

4. "People looking for the act should be typing in 'pooping', like in these other articles" - highly significant answer to the previous argument, which was also never refuted.

Ultimately I was convinced of the existence of a policy-based rough consensus to move by the fact that the wikinav data on its face satisfies the first PRIMARYTOPIC criterion (and was never argued not to satisfy it), and that the dispute regarding the second criterion, while valid, was answered to the satisfaction of many by the distinction between the gerund and the bare infinitive, as consistent with other articles and topics on Wikipedia.

I hope that explanation is to your satisfaction. Red Slash 16:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Red Slash, sorry to be difficult but the OP is definitely correct. There was no consensus as it stands, so please could you reopen and relist? If you agree with the proposal then feel free to cast a support vote. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional comment, Amakuru. I'll post on move review if it's not reopened. SportingFlyer T·C 15:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With no disrespect at all, I can let you know that you can feel free to post that move review. Consider me unconvinced when I give a detailed reasoning as to why I found a consensus (not as to what side I "supported", but simply looking at whether or not there was a consensus), and am told "sorry to be difficult but the OP is definitely correct" with no hint at any reasoning. I take no offense, and I hope to have given no offense, but I stand by my analysis of the arguments. Red Slash 23:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a Move review of Poop. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. SportingFlyer T·C 09:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For several weeks, perhaps more. Red Slash 03:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Template:Use has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 20 § Template:Use until a consensus is reached. Thryduulf (talk) 13:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Talk:TERF (acronym) § TERF move

Hello. I closed the RM discussion a few minutes ago at

@Usernamekiran: I think it would be correct to update most of the existing links from [[TERF]] to [[TERF (acronym)|TERF]] and from [[TERF| to [[TERF (acronym)| with AWB, since the way it would be used in an article is in reference to people being called the term. It isn't particularly urgent though, given that in the meantime it would just be linking to another article related to the meaning of the term. SilverLocust 💬 03:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Well, obviously don't use AWB

controversially.) SilverLocust 💬 04:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

While a few of the links may be used primarily in reference to the acronym and its history, I believe most of them are more likely to refer to the ideology, the primary meaning of the term. I can't think of a case where the article on the ideology wouldn't be a valid or suitable target. These two articles cover facets of the same topic, one main article on the ideology that also more briefly addresses terminology, and one in-depth article elaborating on the history of the acronym. So a link to the main article would never really be "incorrect". Hence, I think we should just go ahead and move it now. Editors can adjust the links in the (relatively few?) articles that refer specifically to the history of the word itself rather than the ideology, but I don't consider that very urgent. I don't think it's necessary to change all those links en masse, and I believe it's more likely that the main article on the ideology is a more suitable target in most cases anyway. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 04:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on the discussion here, I think it is safe to move the pages. I have already edited the templates to update "TERF" to "TERF (acronym)|TERF". Thank you everybody. —usernamekiran (talk) 06:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• That is a bit premature, I was not even awake. I opposed the move and still do. Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

late response-- wasn't awake. after reading through the discussion, I'm fine with the move. didn't really see the discussion until after the close. I'd say that it'd make more sense to switch redirects from TERF to TERF (acronym) instead of TERF to gender-critical feminism.

talk) 14:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Not sure why this whole thing is taking place on my talk page but I'm not complaining. The reason

WP:MISPLACED--basically, we never ever redirect from X to X (thing). A move from X to X (thing) is implicitly (or explicitly) with the goal to redirect X elsewhere. Red Slash 15:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

A very good point, page moves can't be discussed on user talk pages. Slatersteven (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Updating the links is something that people will do as needed. Most of the time when

TERF is linked, it's about the ideology instead of the acronym, anyway. I wouldn't worry about it Red Slash 15:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I think it was ready even several days ago! I can't believe you created an entire article with eleven high-quality references out of thin air, almost entirely by yourself. Honestly,

WP:DYK would love this, I think. Just another masterpiece from you, really good job. Red Slash 15:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Okay, that's too flattering. Thanks! I have swapped the article into mainspace, and will initiate move requests for

Sent forthwith. BD2412 T 15:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Nah, honestly you deserve it. You're an ace at the back end and the front of Wikipedia, significantly improving access to information the world over. I really admire it. Red Slash 17:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have been needing to hear that. I have been receiving a lot of flack these days, from all angles. BD2412 T 20:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

An article that you have been involved in editing—Rubicon —has been proposed for merging with Crossing the Rubicon. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect HNoMS Helge Ingstad (F313 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 3 § HNoMS Helge Ingstad (F313 until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kansas and Missouri 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/Kansas and Missouri 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.

NotAMoleMan (talk) 02:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you possibly move this to your userspace considering it looks like a joke page? It's currently showing up at User:Certes/Reports/Talk with redirected parent, and while I normally move to do's, this one really doesn't seem like it should be in main/talkspace. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's an old one, holy cow. Done Red Slash 16:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Elias Huizar 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/Elias Huizar 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.

Lettlre (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A page you created has been nominated for deletion because it is a biography of a living person that is entirely negative in tone and contains unsourced content, according to

Do not create