User talk:BilledMammal

for all occassions your choice and you seasoned 2601:19B:4800:6360:8D8D:EA7E:50EB:3265 (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I once suggested to Cordless Larry that he consider getting more modern by changing his name to Bluetooth Larry or Cellular Larry, or even just WiFi-Enabled Larry. Similarly, instead of Billed Mammal, maybe you could be Paypal Mammal or Automated Clearing House Mammal or Monthly Recurring Charge Mammal. Just a thought? EEng 23:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I laughed, twice. When I read the comment the first time, and again when I came back to reply.

Thank you for the suggestion, I will take it under serious consideration. I am genuinely tempted to change my name to "Automated Clearing House Mammal". BilledMammal (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With Automated Clearinghouse Mammal you can certainly be confident of no pesky name conflicts with editors on other wikis. EEng 00:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or anywhere else on the internet. You may have just managed to organize those words in a way that has never been done before. BilledMammal (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking outside the box. Way outside. EEng 01:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a kibbitz, but I for one would find "House Clearing Automated Mammal" more evocative. :p Newimpartial (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial, I'm awarding you the EEng Grand Iron Cross of Excellence in Permutated Diction, with Platinum Edging, Laurel Leaves, and Teensy Weensy Sapphire Chips. EEng 01:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC) Just a quibble, but a hyphen is needed: House-Clearing. You can thank me later.[reply]

There are too many good ideas here. I might have to start messing with my signature.

Although "House Clearing Automated Mammal" does suggest I am more tidy than I actually am. BilledMammal (talk) 01:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was imagining a robot skunk that causes unwanted houseguests to flee. EEng 01:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about ATM Mammal? That would mean everyone who addresses you is really saying "Automated Teller Mammal Mammal", like we do with ATM machine? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ATM! ATM! It's me, Dorothy! EEng 09:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I think you could've relisted this discussion given that there appeared to be an emerging consensus, as well as the fact that the arguments against the move were largely rebutted. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Considering it hadn't previously been relisted I've now done so. BilledMammal (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in this edit at Talk:Labours of Heracles#Requested move 10 July 2023 you closed the move request in favor of MOVE, acknowledging the complexity of it, and the deeply divided comments, but appealed to the quality of arguments, and you said, "Considered through this lens, we find a very rough consensus to move this article." I disagree with this, because I believe you made an error in evaluation of the data, in what I consider to be your key statement that swayed you in favor of the move:

Normally, when editors argue that the majority of sources are wrong we dismiss those arguments, in line with WP:OR, WP:RGW, or any number of other two- or three-letter initialism. However, in this case the argument is justified by referring to quality of sources; editors in support of this position argue that while popular sources may refer to it as "Labours of Hercules", academic sources prefer "Labours of Heracles".

Yes to the first sentence, but it's the second one where I think you went wrong. Admittedly, I was very late to the discussion, in fact, mine was the very last comment before closure:

• Oppose based on this ngrams plot showing that the current name is approximately ten times as common as the proposed version, thus per WP:COMMONNAME. Mathglot (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I didn't mention it in my comment above because I assume Move-closers are aware, but ngrams is based on google books, and only plots data when there are at least forty books containing the search expression. That's a pretty clear, order of magnitude preference for the pre-move name, and unless we do a deep dive to find that a huge number of these books are not reliable, that's a tough cliff to overcome. But still, books can be unreliable, or SPS, or whatever, so I've just now done these additional tests at Google scholar:

• 3,340: "labours of hercules"
• 662: "labours of heracles"
• 6,450 "labours of hercules" OR "labors of hercules"
• 1,240 "labours of heracles" OR "labors of heracles"

These show roughly 5–1 in favor of the old name, and by definition, are academic sources (doesn't guarantee they aren't predatory). I think the numbers would have to be strongly skewed in the other direction to overturn the long-term stable title. I wonder if you're open to changing the outcome of the move? I apologize for not including the scholar results before the close, but partly I assumed it wasn't necessary (i.e., I was lazy), and partly the Move-expiration bit me.

One other thing: I do want to make it very clear that I *do* support the part of your stated reasoning at the move that it isn't just a tally tug-of-war, and that *yes* it's okay to overturn that, when quality demands it, and I fully recognize that you thought it came down that way here. I would always support your use of that rationale in the future, and so whatever happens here, I don't want you to shy from using that exact same argument in the future, because I think it is a perfectly valid one, and clearly supported by the close guideline. Mathglot (talk) 06:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You make some good points. I don't have the time to properly consider them now, but I will do later in the day. BilledMammal (talk) 06:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also thought this was a textbook no consensus close. Srnec (talk) 23:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I haven't had time to give this the attention it deserves yet, but I haven't forgotten about it. BilledMammal (talk) 05:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Considering this, I've decided to overturn to "no consensus". First, I did underweight the ngrams results. While such results do include fiction works and other unreliable sources, as a general rule they are more indicative of how high quality sources refer to the subject that Google News searches or similar.

On its own that might not have been enough to convince me to overturn the result, but more convincing are your Google Scholar results, as that directly rebuts the argument in favor of the move. Technically, such evidence should have been provided during the RM, but per WP:NOTBURO I don't think the failure to do so is justification for having the "wrong result". BilledMammal (talk) 04:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These ngrams may not tell the whole story. I tried to make this point in the move discussion but nobody seemed to consider it. The proper noun "Labours of Hecules" is different from the common noun phrase "the labours of Hercules". The proper noun may well be the dominant name for the subject in art, and the art subject may well dominate the usage in Goggle Scholar. But I suspect that the common noun prase "the labours of Heracles" may well dominate when describing the mythological subject, which is what this article is about. Paul August ☎ 17:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I think this is a complete red herring. You said you were going to ponder Cynewulf's comments, have you done so? It's not just art, my personal main interest, but literature and all sorts of aspects of the wider classical tradition. Johnbod (talk) 01:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. By the way I though your close was exceptionally well considered, and I want to second what mathglot said above: I do want to make it very clear that I *do* support the part of your stated reasoning at the move that it isn't just a tally tug-of-war, and that *yes* it's okay to overturn that, when quality demands it, and I fully recognize that you thought it came down that way here. I would always support your use of that rationale in the future, and so whatever happens here, I don't want you to shy from using that exact same argument in the future, because I think it is a perfectly valid one, and clearly supported by the close guideline. I also approve of your willingness, in this case, to not let a "technicality" prohibit you from changing your mind. Paul August ☎ 17:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, you make a very good point, and since ngrams is case-sensitive (but gbooks is not!), I should have added more terms to the RM ngrams query. You can squeeze two additional terms in (and I should have done so in the RM), so as a first step, we could do this: expanded ngrams, which shows a similar result. (There is a limit to the total length of a query, and to get all needed terms in, we'd have to break it up into two, with AE in one and BE in the other, but that would be okay.)

This result doesn't disprove your conjecture about what the lc term refers to. To do that, one would have to do the (non-case sensitive) book searches linked from the bottom of the ngrams page and go through the individual SRP (seerch result pages) and examine book results one by one and make a tally which result is talking about what topic, and importantly: while trying to determine at what point in the SRPs you stop tallying. Because of Google's relevance algorithm for ranking results, books will continue to appear in the list, even if they don't have the search term, if you go far enough down the list; you might need an arbitrary but unbiased threshold, such as, "only consider SRPs in which 50% or more of the individual book results on the SRP have the bolded query term in the SR snippet (abstract) for the book". If you carry out such an experiment, this could provide valuable additional insight into the title question, and if your result points strongly in the other direction, then we should have another RM (perhaps after some delay?) to see how others view it. Mathglot (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes well ... I'm not that conversant with Google searches etc, so I don't anticipate going down that particular road myself. But would it be possible to somehow tease out references to the art subject from the mythological one? Paul August ☎ 18:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, other than manually inspecting each result—some kind of search query? If you can come up with a query that shows no confirmation bias and can tease them apart, that would be the Holy Grail. Mathglot (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My personal approach would be a search for scholarly sources, using either Google Scholar or JSTOR (JSTOR would probably be preferable; less results, and higher quality results), and a manual review of those sources. Unfortunately, time consuming and painful, but properly the only way to differentiate the two.

As for the rest, thank you both for your comments; I appreciate what you both said about the close, even if it did need to be overturned. BilledMammal (talk) 23:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for self-overturning - like Srnec I thought it a "textbook no consensus close". I had issues with several points in your close - "the numerical support for both positions was roughly equal" for one. I hadn't realized there was going to be a weighing of the classy academic usages and only produced one, which happened to be open on my desk at the time. Johnbod (talk) 01:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As part of the original close in this edit, you added an {{old move}} to the Talk header. Given the subsequent changes, can you update this template as appropriate? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done; apologies, I missed this request previously. BilledMammal (talk) 11:10, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kia ora BilledMammal - I'm wanting to ask you about your WP:BOLD close of the above discussion and request that you revert this. While I appreciate that there have been a lot of discussions recently, only one of those has generated any substantial discussion. The most recent proposal is a couple months after the substantial one and includes new evidence that wasn't covered in the previous discussion which merits discussion. There was also no talk of a moratorium in previous closes, and given you've been involved in the past it doesn't seem appropriate to prematurely close the discussion a day after it started. Turnagra (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it was, as I said, a "WP:BOLD WP:INVOLVED close", I'll revert it if you object. However, I would encourage you to let this one stand and wait a few months before opening a new one; this would be the fourth move request in four months, and the community appears exhausted by the topic given the lower participation in the third one that was opened a fortnight ago.

I doubt the level of participation will be much higher, or the result any different, from the last discussion. Further, if this one does go forward I'm going to push for a one year moratorium; a four move requests in such a short period is verging on disruptive, five certainly would be.

Let me know. BilledMammal (talk) 04:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I'm loath to open another place name-related discussion with you, I'd appreciate you reverting your close. The recent coverage almost exclusively refers to the island by K'gari and represents a significant new development compared with the last discussion. While I'm sympathetic that it's a frequent discussion, I think there are grounds for a new one compared to previous moves. Turnagra (talk) 06:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i agree with turnagra. This is not a case of repeating the same argument over and over (which I agree does happen here in some situations). But in this case, all or almost all reliable sources have changed and there is ample new evidence to support the move. Thus is new not contraversal Wcornwell (talk) 08:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Apologies for the delay, I did not have access to a computer. BilledMammal (talk) 02:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BilledMammal, you should certainly revert your close. Given your !vote in the previous move request, you are clearly INVOLVED (as you mention), and it is not disruptive to open a new move request when the sourcing situation changes on the ground, as appears to be the case in this instance. You appear to be fighting a rear-guard action against the renaming of New Zealand locations in the southern hemisphere, and using an INVOLVED IAR close to do so is unseemly. Newimpartial (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC) corrected by Newimpartial (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In their defence, K'gari is in Australia, not New Zealand. Turnagra (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected above. My apologies to all. Newimpartial (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing a move request that is identical to one closed ten days before it is not "unseemly", and while it is an IAR action it is not an uncommon one. However, I'm not sure why you are here arguing for me to do so; I had already agreed to do so in my first reply to Turnagra. I'll add that your assumption of my motives in incorrect and unseemly; my only interest is ensuring that Wikipedia uses the WP:COMMONNAME. BilledMammal (talk) 02:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I find that closing early an RM in which new evidence was being presented about what the commonname now is, is an odd way of ensuring that Wikipedia uses the WP:COMMONNAME - unless of course one has a conviction about what the COMMONNAME is that one holds prior to evidence. But obviously editors' views on this may differ.

Also, appear to he fighting a rear-guard action was intended as an objective description of a pattern of !votes, etc., and not as an assignment of motives - I am confident that in each case your motive is compliant with policy, in the sense that you are !voting or IARing in perfect alignment with what you believe the COMMONNAME to be. However, from the perspective of an uninvolved outsider, the pattern comes across as taking one side of an ongoing dispute over nomenclature (a dispute that is moving gradually in the direction opposite to the view you typically support). But, again, I recognize that even UNINVOLVED editors' views on this may differ. Newimpartial (talk) 12:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since you recently participated in the Charles III requested move discussion, I thought you might like to know that there are two other discussions currently going on about other British monarch article titles here and here. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Not good practice to propose such a large number of moves in one go, leads to confused discussion. PatGallacher (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 04:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 13:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the requested move relisted when there was really no opposition to the request? Considering that fact, shouldn't the move happened since also 7 days had passed? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 12:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I close these as uncontested technical requests, but I decided in this case to relist as you only provided Russian language sources; typically we rely on English-language sources to determine the title of an article and Cyrillic sources pose an even greater difficulty due to the lack of a standardized transliteration from Cyrillic to Latin.

Since it hadn't been relisted, and I considered it possible that this would be a controversial change, I decided it would be better to give more editors the chance to review it. BilledMammal (talk) 12:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay. The two existing sources (which happen to be English) do make mention of "Simsir" but as I mentioned in the talk page, they're not reliable. I also mentioned that many reliable sources including the two only existing primary sources as well as the doctors of historical sciences mention the region/state as Simsim. But alright, let's see who's gonna oppose the move. I personally think the relisting wasn't needed. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @BilledMammal. How you doing? It's been 12 days since you relisted the move request and, there was no opposition to the request, so can you make an update on the request? Will the page now be moved or not? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In lieu of google searches, for example showing 99-1 disparity, and in lieu of checking the primary media in English speaking companies by circulation, and in lieu of using what the individual themself uses as a name, and in lieu of using what their sports federation uses as a name -- all of which I gather you find less than helpful -- what do you suggest to satisfy the primary rule of wp:common name? 2603:7000:2101:AA00:BC80:53D7:4ECB:EF00 (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the discussion at Talk:Olha Kharlan? To demonstrate what the common name is I would recommend using Google News searches, like these: Olha Kharlan and Olga Kharlan.

The results are complicated by the fact that both variants of the name was recently in the headlines, resulting in articles that do not mention here being included, such as this article for Olha and this article for Olga; a manual review of the results to exclude such erroneous results may be needed, or alternatively you can wait until the pages are re-indexed. BilledMammal (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That does not work. Google News reflects only a small fraction of articles, let alone books, etc. --2603:7000:2101:AA00:6011:2EF1:CFEC:C3A8 (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Er, that's WikiProject Amphibians and reptiles? :D Valereee (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha, whoops. I forgot that they owned that redirect. BilledMammal (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can't be expected to remember it, as you're a mammal. :D Valereee (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, us superior tetrapods don't give much concern to the lesser members of our class :D BilledMammal (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that I am following along with interest and will have more substantive thoughts for you as soon as I can, but if you're getting close-ish to posting it and I haven't chimed in, would you give me a ping so I can hurry along my comments? KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will, but there is no rush; the soonest that RfC will be ready is in a few weeks, and I suspect it will take longer than that - the 2022 Fundraising RfC took two months. BilledMammal (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up, you closed the RM as "moved", but the article is still at the old title – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 15:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BilledMammal,

I'm deleting some broken redirects (see here) and many of them were created after you moved an article or redirect page and didn't leave a redirect for the talk page when it was moved. Is there a reason why you do leave a redirect for the main page but not the talk page? Is this something inherent in the page mover process? Because if the main page has a redirect (which I think should happen almost always) then it seems like the there should be a redirect for talk page moves as well. Thanks for any explanation you can offer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it comes from my use of the page swap tool; redirects didn't exist at the target article, and so when I swapped the pages, including the talk pages, in resulted in no talk page redirect being left. I will keep that in mind in the future and make sure to create them. BilledMammal (talk) 06:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert your move to Chernobyl Exclusion Zone immediately. Nothing like consensus existed. On the contrary there is an ongoing disagreement with no substantive arguments put forward in favor of renaming and no attempt at rebuttal to my arguments.Sredmash (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument was that it was capitalized in Russian; this was rebutted by Huw, who pointed out that we don't base our article titles on English-language use, not Russian (we don't have the article at Зона відчуження Чорнобильської). Your argument added after the close was also not convincing; WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS require us to apply sentence case unless the title is capitalized in a substantial majority of sources; your examples don't demonstrate that it is capitalized in a substantial majority of sources, while Cinderella157's ngrams source demonstrates that it is not. BilledMammal (talk) 06:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey BilledMammal. I wanted to ask if you could take March 18–21, 1958, nor'easter out of the move (rename) proposal you did. I want to do improve the article, but have to do a few specific steps, due to some technicalities. My idea is to challenge the PROD (technicality) and then move the whole article into draftspace to work on it (main thing is to get the like 2 sentence article out of mainspace). That said, because the article is in the move request, I am not suppose to move the article, including not into draftspace. Basically, a makeshift switcheroo, but the RM and PROD are 2 technicalities in the way of my idea. So, if you would be ok with removing it from the RM, I would really appreciate it. Have a wonderful day! Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WeatherWriter: I'm happy to take it out if you would prefer to work on the article in draft space, but I don't think it is necessary to do so; if you're confident that the sources exist then it can sit in article space while you work on it. Let me know what you want.

I see someone else has already removed the prod; given your comment here I don't plan to take it to AfD any time soon. BilledMammal (talk) 14:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey BilledMammal! I noticed that as well and I would agree that it doesn’t need to get moved into draftspace, as I have already more than doubled the article size with barely any work. That said, I actually need it removed from the current move request. The dates are wrong for the storm system, so I need to move it to March 19–22, 1958, nor'easter. The stub article was made over a decade ago, but two separate sources I found listed those dates over the 18–21 dates. So if you could remove it from the move request, it would be much appreciated! If the move request decides to change the naming layout of the title, it can be individually moved at that point without a formal move request. Cheers and keep up the good work! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please take another look at your closure of Talk:Allegations of United States support for the Khmer Rouge#Requested move 7 August 2023? I see no way you could draw a "no consensus" conclusion from that. There was no opposition to the renaming. I was the only person other than the nominator who commented at all, and I did not express opposition to the proposal. I suggest reopening and relisting that or reclosing it as moved. I had noticed that the proposal was submitted by an WP:SPA that had previously been indef-blocked, but I didn't really see a reason to oppose the renaming. The content of the article seems to justify it, as far as I can tell. (I didn't look deeply into the question.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by visitor here: there's no consensus in that discussion and had I seen it I would have opposed the move. FOARP (talk) 09:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With only one editor, an SPA, in support, I didn't see a consensus to move the article. However, since the discussion has only been relisted once I don't see any harm in one more and so have done so. BilledMammal (talk) 10:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reopening and relisting that. I'd just like to point out what WP:RMNOMIN says: "No minimum participation is required for requested moves. If no one has objected, go ahead and perform the move as requested unless it is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guidelines or policy." If you think an RM is in conflict with applicable guidelines or policy, and no one has objected to the move, I think the appropriate action is to express your own opinion (or relist, or simply wait), not to close the move with what would basically appear to be a WP:SUPERVOTE. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this comment: I appreciate your statement on flexibility regarding a target date; it's something I've thought was a suitable response each time someone raised the spectre of a looming deadline. I was thinking, though, of even bigger compromises regarding draftification, such as a WikiProject task force regularly requesting very small batches to be moved out of mainspace that they'd work on. I understand this would not achieve everything you're seeking regarding making Wikipedia mainspace more selective in the articles it contains, but I think something along these lines might have a better chance of attaining a clear consensus.

I was hoping, though, that you wouldn't respond regarding past policy compliance. I don't think any of the long-standing participants is going to argue any others out of their positions at this point. isaacl (talk) 18:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome considering of compromises beyond draftification, and I encourage you to think of more, but I am convinced task forces will not work and a similar notion was rejected in LUGSTUBS #1.

I was hoping, though, that you wouldn't respond regarding past policy compliance. Perhaps I shouldn't have, and I did decide to refrain from arguing about the more ambiguous violations (WP:NSPORTS and WP:NOTDATABASE, among others), but I felt it necessary to mention WP:MASSCREATE as that policy is quite unambiguous in that it applied to this situation and its requirements were not met. BilledMammal (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not optimistic about the success of a task force, either, but that's the nature of a compromise: people don't get everything they want. I feel it's a step forward to encourage sustained participation in improving articles, with small batches regularly moved out of mainspace in order to reduce their maintenance costs. isaacl (talk) 18:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I believe we have already reached a reasonable compromise, a middle ground where nobody gets everything they want; draftspace for five years. Some people want to keep them in mainspace, and others either want to keep them in draftspace for less time or to delete them outright, but it's a reasonable balance between the two.

However, I'm willing to consider alternative ones. Are you suggesting that we create a list of articles (perhaps all 5000 cricketers that meet the criteria of LUGSTUBS 2) and get consensus to regularly move a pre-defined batch out of article space to draft space, presuming those articles are not improved? Perhaps at a rate of 100 every month? BilledMammal (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am suggesting starting with a list of articles to examine (somewhat analogous to contributor copyright investigations) that a task force can use to track its progress. My suggestion is to start with leaving it up to the task force to regularly request a batch to be moved out of article space, either to draft space or to project space, so it can set its own internal targets. The community can use this list to review the progress periodically, and decide accordingly if further steps should be taken to address the balance between improving articles and reducing maintenance issues. I am aware that you feel you've proposed a reasonable compromise already. Nonetheless, there are a lot of editors who really do try to find an approach that meets the real-world meaning of consensus: something that nearly everyone can live with, and produces the most amount of net satisfaction. Thus I think it may be worth seeing if there's a way to get more people on board while still progressing towards an improved state, even if at a slower pace. isaacl (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot about this discussion. Below, I've described what an alternative system needs for me to get behind it to BeanieFan11; it needs to be more likely to improve the articles which could become policy-compliant than the current process, and it needs to get the non-policy-compliant articles out of mainspace in a reasonable timeframe and without an undue effort on behalf of the community.

My concern with your proposal is that I don't think it suitably addresses the need to get the non-policy-compliant articles out of mainspace. I'm not convinced it will be functional - I suspect the project effort will collapse within a few months - and the method to address that collapses increases the burden on the community. BilledMammal (talk) 04:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think starting with a more relaxed approach on moving articles out of mainspace combined with a page to track progress will make it simpler to understand the state at any point in time (right now, a lot of ad hoc queries are made to try to answer people's questions about progress). This will make it easier to reach a consensus on a more accelerated solution later on if desirable. Thus I think the burden will be less overall and current obstacles will be smoothed over. isaacl (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Surreal Barnstar
	Long overdue. Thank-you for your various (usually RfC-oriented) efforts to make Wikipedia a different – but better – place. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 20:52, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it is nice to hear that. BilledMammal (talk) 21:25, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...instead of creating numerous proposals to mass draftify enormous quantities of potentially notable articles--something that has been shown to result in little improvement (Olympian discussion) and take up also enormous quantities of editor time--work on starting up events to improve the stubs, something that has been shown to work? (see Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Football biography cleanup, which has gotten about 10-15 times as many articles expanded as the Olympian draftifications in less time) I know we're on completely opposite sides of the notability spectrum, but would you consider working together to potentially create things similar to the aforementioned football biography cleanup page, where editors can freely work on improving stub articles instead of doing so under heavy pressure and under time limits? I've thought of several ideas, for example having competitions (like those done at Wikipedia:The Core Contest or Wikipedia:WikiCup) with barnstars or other things as rewards - I suspect these would motivate editors much more to improve sports articles than the system we've got set currently. Thoughts? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You say shown to result in little improvement in regards to the Olympic discussion, but we have different perspectives on this. I see articles which violate WP:SPORTSCRIT #5 and WP:NOTDATABASE as negatives that make the encyclopedia worse, by damaging the perception of Wikipedia among the public, by wasting readers time by suggesting to them that we have content on an individual only to present them with a database entry, and by suggesting to editors that the creation of such articles is appropriate. As such, simply removing them from mainspace is an improvement.

This is true even for articles which could become policy-compliant, particularly when we can't differentiate between them and the vast majority which cannot, but the ideal result for those articles are that they are identified, improved, and kept.

Considering this, for me to get behind a different process it needs two things; it needs to be more likely to improve the articles which could become policy-compliant than the current process, and it needs to get the non-policy-compliant articles out of mainspace in a reasonable timeframe and without an undue effort on behalf of the community.

Your proposed cleanups may be an improvement for the first aspect (although I am not convinced of that; the criteria to construct that list is less stringent that the criteria I am use to construct mine, and in general American football players who played at anytime from the late 1800's to the modern are probably more likely to have coverage than Olympians from between 1896 and 1912) but they lack any way to manage the second.

Following discussions with BST, my current plan has been to run the lists past the relevant WikiProjects a month or two before opening the RfC. One thing I could do, if you believe it would be an improvement, is to structure those lists as an cleanup project when I do so? I'm also happy to listen and consider any other proposals you might have. BilledMammal (talk) 04:16, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still think this would be a reasonable compromise - you want to see articles not currently meeting SPORTCRIT mass removed but still seem to want the ones able to be policy-compliant improved - I don't want to see the articles not currently meeting SPORTCRIT mass removed. Under my plan (which could use some tweaking), I believe that we'd get many of the improvable ones improved, and many of the non-improvable ones could still be removed:
For example, we could have a competition like the different backlog drives, with different points for different items worked on, and barnstars for meeting a certain points criteria. E.g. a certain amount of points for improving random sports stubs (I would not limit this to just Lugnuts Olympian/cricketers; it could be a "Global Sports Stub Article Improvement-athon"), bonus if its a "Lugstub," plus points for getting NN articles successfully deleted at AFD, etc.
I suspect if such a competition (or just a general page like the football bio cleanup, but still maintain awards for getting a certain amount improved, certain amount successfully AFDd) were widely advertised (something you seem better at than I) we would get a large participation - while it may take longer to get rid of the articles which are actually non-notable, it would ultimately result in many more that are notable that otherwise would have been deleted being improved - thus the encyclopedia is improved. Those are my thoughts. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that would address your concerns? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but unfortunately it does not. I am convinced that it will not be effective in removing mass created articles which fail SPORTSCRIT and NOTDATABASE - and I note you proposed this in the original LUGSTUBS, without much support. BilledMammal (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, that discussion didn't really receive much discussion at all. But back to my idea: you don't think that a competition which includes encouragement to nominate GNG-failing articles for deletion would meet your concerns? Think of it this way, if we advertise this widely enough (for, I don't know, a two-month competition that can be repeated later if successful) and get, say 100 participants (I'm sure there's enough interested sports editors, like myself, and sports-cleanup-interested editors, like yourself, to get a large participation, considering how large the participation the draftification proposals get) who each improve 10 articles and nominate for deletion 10 articles, then we'd have gotten 1,000 articles improved and 1,000 non-notable articles deleted in about the same time-frame as the draftification proposal, except in my case we get 1,000 articles improved in addition to the nn ones being removed. I'm not necessarily asking for you to completely stop with your draftification proposals following this cricket one, just to halt them to see how such a competition works out, and then if it doesn't do much good, you could return to your proposals. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BeanieFan11: As an alternative to draftification, what would you think about sports.wikipedia.org?

The details would need to be worked out, but I would suggest it should work as a very close partner of en.wikipedia.org. If we set it up correctly, it could be an "incubator" for enwiki; when an article in it is expanded to a point where notability is demonstrated it is moved to enwiki and a transposition or redirect created, and when an article within its purview on enwiki is deleted or redirected it is instead transwikified to sportswiki. This would allow comprehensive coverage to exist, would allow readers to access that coverage readily (its result would turn up on google), and would prevent the duplication of effort that a more extreme fork would result in. BilledMammal (talk) 07:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your are a baby. Have a good day 2A01:E0A:A84:5C70:D5BB:8AE4:BE20:DE13 (talk) 11:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a headsup that you typoed your signature when making your comment on the arbitration request so you got just the date. Thryduulf (talk) 01:50, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that was intentional; since it is my own section I didn't see the need to add my name. Thank you for letting me know, though! BilledMammal (talk) 01:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VPPR is currently 729,872 bytes long – a length that is inaccessible to many editors, especially those on smartphones. Nearly all of that is your RFC about cricketers. If you decide to start any other RFCs about mass-draftification or that you otherwise expect to have attract 100+ comments (that one is presently 665 comments from 136 users), please start the RFC on a separate page. See WP:RFCTP, which links two examples to show how they're usually named. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The length of these discussions can cause issues, but I'm not convinced the benefits of moving them to a sub-page outweighs the issues caused by the reduced visibility; indeed, part of the reason the LUGSTUBS had sufficient WP:CONLEVEL was because it was held at the village pump. BilledMammal (talk) 10:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thank you for closing the village pump proposal on townships; there's definitely clear support for renaming townships articles. I'm a little concerned, though, about the possibility of nationwide mass-moves that don't reflect state-by-state variations, and wanted get your thoughts or recommendations. (For some states the Township, State form works well, but I know of some like Indiana where that form is very uncommon in reliable sources, in part because few townships are uniquely named.) Would having state-specific discussions on how to implement this be a good step? I just want to make sure that when mass-moves are made that they're likely to stick and not have to be mass-moved back. Thanks! ╠╣uw [talk] 15:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the discussion there was no consensus on having state-by-state variation, as such the default should be to move them unless there is a consensus not to for a specific state, per WP:CCC. In other words, feel free to open discussions on state by state (keeping in mind policies such as WP:IDHT), but unless those discussions produce a consensus to not move the articles for a specific state my assessment of the village pump proposal is that they should be moved. BilledMammal (talk) 06:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll aim to start those discussions today for a few of the affected states on their WikiProject talk pages. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:59, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that per WP:LOCALCON a consensus at a WikiProject can not overturn a broader consensus; the discussions might be worth starting there, but if those WikiProjects do object to being included you will need to take your objections to a broader location. BilledMammal (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is WP:PLACE the kind of location you have in mind? I certainly agree that such changes absolutely should be raised and discussed there. (I had assumed such forums would already have been alerted to the original village pump discussion and invited to participate, since the change potentially affects the titling of thousands of articles on geographic places, but AFAIK they weren't, which seems problematic). ╠╣uw [talk] 13:51, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, PLACE would be an appropriate location to hold such a discussion, with appropriate notifications. BilledMammal (talk) 02:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a Request Move discussion about William IV. Since you participated in the previous move discussion involving William IV, I thought you might want to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have received the echo notification you sent me. I am sorry but I am not prepared to continue to participate in that discussion, because I am not prepared to interact with certain editors at this time. You are not one of those editors. Best regards. James500 (talk) 12:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Tim Ballard on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Project Weber/RENEW on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are well. Thanks for your recent close. There's a follow up discussion about a secondary question that came up during the discussion. Some clarification about the "rough consensus" you outlined about attribution would be helpful. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. That should help focus the discussion. I do think the close is too broad. The question of attribution wasn't asked and came up later in the discussion. I changed my comment for inclusion later to support attribution. Anyway, small potatoes. Again, thanks for your prompt response. Very helpful! Nemov (talk) 14:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for heroic coordination of amazingly productive on-wiki community conversations about the relationship between the Wikimedia Foundation and the community. Bluerasberry (talk) 11:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! BilledMammal (talk) 02:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you had corrected by typing, as I regularly make such minor typos, but for once it wasn't me! Something I didn't realise until after I had thanked you. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome ;). (I make far too many minor typos myself; at least I caught that one eventually...) BilledMammal (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This cookie is delicious, that's why I am giving it to you. TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 13:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tasty, thank you! BilledMammal (talk) 14:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BilledMammal,

Apologies for messaging you and hope all is well! It's been a little while since I've added my questions/comments to your message on my talk page and I was wondering when you'd be able to get a chance to look over and reply to it. I understand that you're busy with other things though so no worries if you can't. Just let me know if you're planning on replying soon so I know whether I should message another user/admin with experience in this policy area. I know I also wrote a lot so if it helps, I could also bold the important parts to make it easier. Let me know what would be better for you. In any case, many thanks for messaging me in the first place and suggesting a discussion on the topic!

All the best, Dan the Animator 04:12, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry; I saw your reply and intended to get back to it but it slipped my mind. I'll a little busy at the moment, but I'll reply tomorrow. BilledMammal (talk) 07:52, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Thanks for letting me know and looking forward to your reply. Dan the Animator 18:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit surprised you didn't space out your three WMF-related proposals. Is there a particular reason for that? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: We hoped that by combining them together we could boost overall turnout, as well as reduce editors who tuned out from repeated discussions on the same general topic. We also felt that by presenting whatever consensuses we could find to the WMF at the same time it would be more likely that the WMF would accept at least some of them. BilledMammal (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contributing to the discussion on whether Russian selo should be added to the GEOLAND blacklist. I read your comment as an endorsement of blacklisting selo, but it might be a good idea to to make that explicit by !voting (or, alternatively, !voting against it if you oppose doing so). FOARP (talk) 12:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say I think you've done a really good job on the three enwiki–WMF RfCs. Even though I don't agree with all the proposals, I'm impressed with how you went about gathering ideas and collaboratively drafting beforehand, then launched well-formatted and widely-advertised RfCs in the appropriate places. It's really an exemplary way to go about building consensus on a complex set of questions. Thank you for taking the initiative. – Joe (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate you saying that. BilledMammal (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Withania somnifera on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an issue with my edits (by leaving the warning on my talk page) please state what it is so we can resolve it. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, was in the process of doing so. Now done. BilledMammal (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is BilledMammal. Thank you. Brandmeister^talk 10:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make very substantive changes to policy or guideline pages and label them copyediting. I think the change in question is probably reflective of the consensus that has sort of emerged on the talk page, but people are apt to ignore the change as something trivial and not even look at this hit on their watchlist when you incorrectly claim it was just a "ce".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are looking at different edits; there are three recent edits to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography involved in this change:

1. BilledMammal; edit summary: "ce"
2. BilledMammal; edit summary: "Generally agree with restoration; update to the version that had incorporated modifications discussed on talk page"
3. LokiTheLiar; edit summary: "as discussion on the talk page has stalled, re-add language to implement big well-attended recent RFC

The substantial edits were #2 and #3; #1 was merely changing "," to "and". BilledMammal (talk) 04:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your change at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosion&oldid=1180817348 does not adhere to what reliable sources say - pretty much every reliable source is saying more investigation is needed. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much every reliable source is saying what I said in that edit. Regardless, for content disagreements like this, please use the article talk page in the future - it’s the correct location to discuss and resolve such disagreements as it allows all editors to participate and keeps the discussion connected to the contact and thus easy to find in the future. BilledMammal (talk) 02:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have ignored my expressed concerns about the sizable holes in the version of the synopsis you decided in favor of, as well as the similar practices used in other, higher profile novels. Why? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As closer it is not my place to decide which version is better; it's only my place to decide which version the community believes is better with their arguments viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. BilledMammal (talk) 03:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey BilledMammal. In the future, could you let RfCs on RSN, like this one (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Keraunos), go uninterrupted? Even through the RfC was "premature" to you as the closer, interrupting it actually canceled any effect of it and basically wasted all participants time. As you can see here, I added Keraunos to the RSP as a no consensus reasoning, given editors disagreed with it. However, since the RfC was interrupted prior to 30 days, it cannot be added and therefore does not qualify as a discussion. Aka, whether or not it is reliable is, as far as WP:RS is concerned, not discussed yet. So even though editors disagreed in it, the disagreement was basically a waste of time. So in the future, could you let RfCs on WP:RSN go uninterrupted for a full 30 days? Thanks. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC's to add sources to RSP are not allowed to be held unless two criteria are met:

1. The source is widely used
2. The source has been subject to repeat discussions

In this case, those criteria weren't met. BilledMammal (talk) 07:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 1 was met easily. Criteria 2 was debatably met, given editors disagreed about it in July 2023, plus an editor who still edits weather-topics today questioned the source's reliability, in an article talk page back in 2009. Either way, please don't stop RfCs unless it is clear that a WP:SNOW closure is going to happen, and especially don't close ones where editors disagree amid the RfC. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There have been no previous discussions at WP:RSN; if you want to appeal the close, the correct location to do so is WP:AN. BilledMammal (talk) 07:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 08:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, so I'm trying to learn 1RR, but I'm confused again now. Based on the criteria you and Scottish Radish have explained to me, why don't these count as reverts? From what I can tell, these seem to fall under: "Any removal, partially or in full, of content another editor has added is a revert." Again, just trying to learn here, but you've lost me again.

1. 15:11, 9 November 2023 and 15:12, 9 November 2023
2. 15:14, 9 November 2023

CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) - I had a quick look at the page history and I think I know where the confusion is. So all 3 of those edits seem to count as reverts, however, all for unique things, so all of them are basically their own 1RR "count". Here is a quick explanation. Let's say I add the phrase "The Germans won WWII and the Allies lost to Japan" to an article. Another editor comes along and sees the first part of that phrase "The Germans won WWII", so in 1 edit, they change it to say "The Allies won WWII". The sentence (after 1 of their edits) now reads "The Allies won WWII and the Allies lost to Japan". In a 2nd edit a minute later, that one editor corrects the 2nd part of the sentence, so it now reads "The Allies won WWII and Japan lost to the Allies". Even though it was 2 separate "revert" edits, it wasn't reverting any individual thing more than one. But let's say I re-add the phrase "The Allies lost to Japan" somewhere else in the article or even a revert on that sentence. That would be a violation of 1RR. That example is weird, but I think that should help clear up what is a violation of 1RR vs not a violation of 1RR. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No they are not, you dont get one revert per bit of material, you get one revert per page per day total. The part that matters here however is that consecutive edits count as one edit, and thus one revert. As all three edits were consecutive it is one revert. But no, you dont get a 1RR count per unique reversal, it is one revert per page the end. nableezy - 19:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the explanation 😊 CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up Nableezy. So yes, BilledMammal did violate 1RR today on that article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, because the edits were all consecutive, making it one revert. nableezy - 19:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks nableezy. I wish our revert rules were clearer; if there is anything I've learnt over the past month it's that they are far too easy for new editors to misunderstand. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how we could make them so; they have to be this complicated to avoid loopholes, and I'm not sure how we can rephrase them to be clearer. BilledMammal (talk) 00:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Al-Shifa ambulance airstrike on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Otzma Yehudit on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BilledMammal,

You closed the RM as moved without leaving any explanation despite there was clear objection from Ka-ru and clear canvassing from the nominator before relisting. From a further discussion in the related RM Talk:Saiō#Requested_move_24_October_2023 stated, this move may not be appropriate. There wasn't clear argument about how Saikū Palace can't be the primary topic of title Saikū while Saiō is actually as Saigū in the nomination rationale. Thus, WP:SMALLDETAILS may apply for Saikū Palace to hold the distinct topic at Saikū and leave Saigū for the title to disambiguate. Besides, from Ka-ru's argument in Talk:Saiō, the title of natural disambiguator "Saikū Palace" is actually erroneous. As a page mover as well, I think you should revert this move and reopen this RM for further discussion. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 02:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given minimal participation I've relisted. I'm not convinced there was canvassing to that RM, but regardless I see no reason it won't benefit from further discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 00:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your relisting. I was referring to nominator's canvassing of the related RM Talk:Saiō#Requested_move_24_October_2023 on that page, which is still inappropriate and may raise a systematic issue. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 05:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Reywas92, Mangoe. I've come across a few lists like List of places in Arizona (A) and List of places in Colorado: A–F which seem to be generated from GNIS, totally unsourced and often full of deleted articles that were delinked but never removed. Should cleaning these up be the next chapter in the GNIS saga? –dlthewave ☎ 22:16, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think such a cleanup would be a good idea, but I think it will be an uphill battle to do so; people tend to point at GEOLAND even when there are no suitable sources. BilledMammal (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Funny about that, I just mentioned List of places in Idaho: A–K on @FOARP:'s talk page. It looks to have been generated from GNIS, but the redlinks don't appea to be for deleted articles. I see no hope of getting it deleted. Mangoe (talk) 01:50, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I see that most edits on the list are people removing deleted articles. It is very, very old, created in 2006. Mangoe (talk) 01:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up a lot of deleted articles from the Arizona lists and a few obvious rail sidings from Colorado. Since many states have similar lists, I wonder if it makes sense to clean these up systematically and develop consistent standards for inclusion. It would probably be uncontroversial to reduce them to bluelinked articles which would cut down on a lot of the GNIS spam.

It's also a good reminder to go back and remove deleted articles from lists etc sicne this often isn't done by the AfD closer. –dlthewave ☎ 02:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BilledMammal, I hope you are doing fine. I am here after I noticed a mistake on Talk:P. Gannavaram Assembly Constituency#Requested move 26 August 2023. Although you have closed the discussion saying that the move was performed you haven't moved the article to the original name that has been requested. Kindly move it. Thank you 456legend(talk) 02:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BilledMammal, I saw this editor's question at the Teahouse and I'm following up. I see you've been editing since this was posted so I assume you saw it. Is there a reason you closed the discussion as "moved" but then didn't move the page? If there's a technical issue I can assist. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only issue is with me; I thought I moved it at the time, I saw this message and thought I moved it after, but in both cases I was mistaken. I’ll get to it tonight. BilledMammal (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done, sorry all for the delay. BilledMammal (talk) 03:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Sabrina Carpenter on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BilledMammal! I am considering a move review following your recent close of the above move discussion, but want you to have a look at my findings first before I proceed.

I admit that the misunderstandings about how Ngram syntax works devalidated a lot of the line of reasoning in my commnents. But one thing still remains valid and needs to be considered when evaluating metrics about the occurrence of "Cro-Magnon" in published texts: "Cro-Magnon" can either generically refer to (European) early modern humans, or it can specifically refer to the site of "Cro-Magnon" and the indivduals excavated there.

I have taken a look at the 7870 occurrences in Google Scholar since 2013 ("Cro-Magnon"&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=2013&as_yhi=) As a quick sample, I took the first 20 search results and looked up for what "Cro-Magnon" refers to in these publications. In 14 of them, "Cro-Magnon" specifically refers to the "Cro-Magnon" site and the indivduals excavated there. 5 of them use the term in the wider sense, although one author explicitly writes in 2015:[1] "I also apologize to anyone who objects to my use of "Cro-Magnon" in the title. I realize that the term is both outdated and inaccurate, but I needed its alliterative effect..." (emphasis added). And there is one source that uses the term in a metaphorical way, but clearly the metaphor relates to the wider sense.

So it's 70% sensu stricto and 30% sensu lato. Obviously, this is a very small sample and things might change a bit in either direction if more search hits are evaluated. But it becomes clear that while "Cro-Magnon" might be a more recognizable term than "European early modern humans" for the topic of the article (hits for "European early modern humans" are indeed deplorable low), it is not the primary topic related to the title "Cro-Magnon", apart from not being precise (unlike "European early modern humans"). In the majority of sources, "Cro-Magnon" refers to the rock shelter and the people excavated at this very place. WP:PRECISION matters too besides plain metrics. Austronesier (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a think on your comments and reply in the next few days; sorry for the delay. BilledMammal (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, please take your time! I failed to comment on @Chhandama's very relevant contribution to the discussion for almost two weeks, so I'd be last one to rush :) –Austronesier (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You make some good points, but I don't think they justify overturning the result; as I understand it you are not making the argument that "Cro-Magnon" isn't the WP:COMMONNAME for this topic, but that this isn't the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for that name.

Given that this move was centered on what the common name was, and that the status quo is that this is the primary topic (the redirect from Cro-Magnon to Early European modern humans had existed for almost five years), I don't think that an objection raised after the close that this isn't the primary topic is sufficient to overturn - although opening a new move request on that basis to a disambiguated form of Cro-Magnon, WP:NATURAL or otherwise, could be appropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, I didn't see that there is a freeze on moves until 1 December. Thank you for closing it. Can I open it again on the 1st? Or only on the 2nd? Thank you in advance Homerethegreat (talk) 10:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the 1st, however I suspect the move will be rejected; a similar one was considered in the past but rejected as while the format deviates from our style guideline it matches the format in reliable sources. 22:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Palestinian exodus from Kuwait (1990–91) on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by NPP Coordination using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Taba and Nuweiba drone attacks has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Page contents already covered in the article: Houthi involvement in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Abo Yemen✉ 13:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello BilledMammal, 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 2024. Happy editing, ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:53, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:53, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert: Thank you, and Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you too! Sorry, I only noticed this now! BilledMammal (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]