User talk:BilledMammal

You've got mail

Hello, BilledMammal. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Ovinus (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, the range is very interesting; I will have to consider how best to use this data. BilledMammal (talk) 14:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Just realized that I didn't filter out disambiguations. Unfortunately I can't think of a good way to query the disambiguation status of pages in 2021, besides parsing the full dump. I do have a program for that, so I might adapt it. Alternatively you can take (Data) - (Current disambiguations). Ovinus (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I think the number of articles that existed as something other than disambiguation's in 2021 but don't exist as disambiguation's now will be small enough to make no meaningful difference to the data, so I think your second suggestion will be sufficient. BilledMammal (talk) 05:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

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 10:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:No significant coverage (sports)

Template:No significant coverage (sports) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section 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, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Quarry

Hi BilledMammal, I have noticed you know how to use quarry. I am interested in obtaining some results on userviews of certain articles. Like all articles of a certain category. Like this category. Or all articles an editor has 20%< share of the contributions. Or all articles a user brought to a GA. etc. I would like to be able to conduct such quarry-queries myself, so I could also check another category or editor. Is this possible? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Paradise Chronicle: Unfortunately, Quarry doesn't store information on an articles pageviews. Ovinus has downloaded the complete dataset from here (although it seems to only have data up until 2020?) and they might be able to help, but that wouldn't enable you to run your own queries. BilledMammal (talk) 05:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I can get day-granular page views for articles in a category. Let me know if you want that. If you think people would find it useful, I'll try make a web interface, although I've never made a Toolforge bot before. [1] and its ilk contain post-2020 data. Ovinus (talk) 06:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for both of your efforts and answers.@BilledMammal@Ovinus. I have downloaded some files, but only one was ca. 2.5+ GB, took several minutes to download and was not very informative at first sight. The next were over 5GB and 2 GB and each would have taken several minutes to download... even if it would give some info that's not practical. Userviews takes a few seconds for most editors and you have it. The ideal would be a tool that provides us with a watchlist, to which one can add the articles. From a watchlist we can add and remove articles. For the notifications an article creator gets, a tool would sure be helpful in maintaining the article, as any article creator at some day in the future will stop to edit wikipedia and then someone else should be able to get the notifications. As to my knowledge, article creators get notifications on links to and from other articles and are listed as article creators in this list. The ones with a share of over 20% contribution will probably be the editors which are interested in maintaining the article.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

It'll be tricky, but a fun exercise, for the authorship %. If you mean simply by number of diffs, that'll be straightforward, as I think there's a list of diffs. If not, I can parse the full history dump, which, although in the terabytes unzipped, can be done as a stream. Much harder is determining authorship percentage of the actual text, since it would definitely require parsing the full dump and performing a rather expensive text diff algorithm on each and tracking what text is authored by whom. Intermediate deleted revisions would induce an apoplexy. But it'd also be useful for CCI, which is an alluring cause. Ovinus (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Dear Ovinus, whatever you'll accomplish will do and be a step forward. How about an optional (like a script to be installed?) additional button which for example could be a yellow star beside the blue one (or an icon in a drop down menu of a tool bar), and by clicking on that icon, one would receive the notifications and userviews of the article creator.

If they click again, they wouldn't receive anything anymore. With that, percentages wouldn't matter, it'd be optional and voluntary to request and receive the information. Pageviews would likely be interesting for DYK or the Mainpage as there the coordinators could perform an overview over all the page views of the days articles on the Main Page.

Notifications would be useful in cooperating in maintaining articles. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

And the next reply will be in another venue, as Billed Mammal will likely get notified for every edit we do on their talk page. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

My talk is open, if you'd like. I'm interested in your ideas; the "receive article creator notifications" is possible in a live manner. Ovinus (talk) 01:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran 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 06:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists 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 13:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football 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 23:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers 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 09:31, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Divine Worship: The Missal 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, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Olivia Newton-John 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 22:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion 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 17:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Pern stories 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 04:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Israel 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 10:31, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Death of Keenan Anderson 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 22:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Heat 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 03:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:No 3D illustrations 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 02:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Could you not nominate a bunch of NFL players for deletion right now?

At least wait for the others to complete - its becoming too much work for me. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Half Barnstar
	Givin' some WikiLove so that it's clear that even though we are on opposing sides in that ITN discussion, I respect the perspective you bring! Curbon7 (talk) 05:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@Curbon7: Thank you, it is nice to hear that; I appreciate your perspective as well. BilledMammal (talk) 05:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of prime ministers of New Zealand 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 03:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

On the Lugnuts stubs

Sorry I edited a page in your user space. I thought it was some discussion. Good idea, thanks for the ping, and yes, I am also on it a bit. Do by chance have access to the main article creators in the last 1 or 2 months? I'd like to see if these discussions at scale actually have an effect on the quality of mass creation.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:30, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

No need to apologize; I do, take a look at Quarry:query/68705 and Quarry:query/71788. They are currently running, but they should be done around ten minutes after I post this message. I reused an older query for these; I have since worked out a solution to include articles created from redirects, and if you want that data included I can do that. BilledMammal (talk) 02:10, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

This

Re this, there has been consensus to accept the new heading format. Silikonz💬 04:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn't notice that discussion - it didn't fix the issue with the RM tool anyway. BilledMammal (talk) 05:01, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

RMTR requests

Sorry if I spam-pinged you doing the moves, but I moved them without any issues and I fixed all but one of the initial double redirects. I'll leave the rest of the cleanup to you as closer, but feel free to ping me if you want another set of eyes. Sennecaster (Chat) 06:15, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 09:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Avoiding deletable Stubs/Publishing Threshold

Maybe raising the minimum requirement for publishing an article would be good for tackling the stub discussions. Still everybody can edit, and everybody can publish into main space. But an article needs to have a certain amount of content in order to be "publishable". Like a certain amount of phrases, like 10? If something is notable, I believe there could easily be found ten phrases on it. Or have a certain amount of words... Paradise Chronicle (talk) 05:38, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree, but I'm not certain there would be consensus to add such a requirement - on consensus to enforce it, if it was added. I think smaller steps, such as requiring all articles to have at least one source plausibly containing WP:SIGCOV to remain in mainspace, would be how to start. BilledMammal (talk) 12:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, BilledMammal. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Salvio ^giuliano 12:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Looking forward to your timely assistance at the RMT. Thanks, ─ The Aafī (talk) 12:45, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Salvio, and thank you TheAafi for endorsing my request. BilledMammal (talk) 12:45, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I enjoy doing a number of things on several projects. From taking care of Urdu Wikipedia's Main Page's In The News section, and translation administration on several multilingual projects, and clearing backlog at the RMT here. These three tasks put together with my volunteering on the VRT make my days good. I always feel glad when competent and helpful editors come around to help and that's what made me endorse your request. ─ The Aafī (talk) 12:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Forgive the roll-back

Was out of line, self-reverted, can discuss later but not right now Red Slash 23:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Kusasi people

I am a bit perplexed how on earth you perceived a consensus to move the page "Kusasi people" to Kusaal people. I think you may have had your Kusasi and Kusaal confused. Only two people replied - myself, who strenuously objected to it, brought evidence from plenty of RSs for it and at no point conceded that Kusaal was anything but a language, that the name for the people is and must be Kusasi. I never, ever conceded to any move. The only other replier was Kwami, who, although voting for the Kusaal move, could not find RSs for it and admitted "Kusasi people" was more common. The consensus would be to NOT move the page. Walrasiad (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

My reading of the discussion was that both of you presented RS', but that the proposal was supported by the various naming convention policies despite not being the WP:COMMONNAME. However, reviewing the sources I see that the working link is not a reliable source, and the PDF links are not working for me either, meaning that the issue isn't on your end.

Based on that, I've overturned to no consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 04:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't know how either of you could fail to access the sources. They're standard SIL publications. If you can read a PDF, you should be able to access them. I just tried the minimalist Falkon browser, and it can access them too, so the problem must indeed be on your end, some browser or preference fault that the two of you share. — kwami (talk) 09:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I tried again, and I don't know why I couldn't access them last time; I am able to access them now. I'm going to revert my clone and allow someone else to close this. BilledMammal (talk) 12:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Therapyisgood (talk) 17:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Anton Solovyov

Hello BilledMammal. I am just letting you know that I deleted Anton Solovyov, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which didn't fit the page in question. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I wasn't sure what criteria best applied - I missed G14. BilledMammal (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I thought the script would leave a more descriptive message. You tagged under WP:A3 which is for articles with no content, but a disambiguation page with entries has content even if the entries link to deleted pages or no page at all. At first I declined your tag, then went back and deleted under WP:G14 (which is for unneeded disambiguation pages specifically) instead. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

List removals

BilledMammal, the two articles you restored here should not have been restored. As Cbl62 said, "I supported this extraordinary proposal only on specific conditions, including the absence of any SIGCOV. If SIGCOV have even arguably been added to some small portion of the articles, those articles should be stricken from the list." - and then from casualdejekyll: "Ok, no, this proposal is about stubs with zero sigcov references. Not stubs with one reference. Zero. Considering you're the most vocal advocate of the proposal, I was hoping you would already know that, @BilledMammal." Both of those articles had coverage that is arguably SIGCOV and should not be on that list. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

This proposal is about articles that met a given criteria when the RfC was opened. The criteria for restoring these articles is different from this criteria, though in deference to Cbl's position I don't object to some removing articles where a single source has been added, so long as that single source is extensive. BilledMammal (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Its rather ridiculous to say that this does not cover the topic "directly and in detail, so that no original research is need to extract the content," and its quite arguable that this source also constitutes SIGCOV. Your support voters have made it clear they do not want articles with coverage that could even arguably be considered to be SIGCOV on that list ("Ok, no, this proposal is about stubs with zero sigcov references. Not stubs with one reference. Zero. Considering you're the most vocal advocate of the proposal, I was hoping you would already know that, @BilledMammal —casualdejekyll"; "This is troubling. I supported this extraordinary proposal only on specific conditions, including the absence of any SIGCOV. If SIGCOV have even arguably been added to some small portion of the articles, those articles should be stricken from the list. Otherwise, the grounds underlying the "support" votes (including mine) have changed. —Cbl62"; "If SIGCOV is met, those should be excluded ... and evaluated on their own merits. —Rlendog") BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it doesn't. I'm saying that one source isn't enough to demonstrate WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@BeanieFan11: You don't have my permission to edit my comments, which per WP:TPO is required. Please stop reverting, and if you think my proposal is wrong you may argue against it - you may not try to correct it. BilledMammal (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Concern

Your bag of geo moves is ill considered. I would suggest you withdraw the RM and submit them separately. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I opposed both moves, but I like the underlying idea: a report of dab pages containing a single link. Seems like a good way to catch all sorts of oddities, but yeah, in at least half of cases, the solution is to move the article. These two RMs were juts the top of the iceberg, right? If it's a big list, then you can post it at WT:WPDAB: people there might be interested in helping with the manual checks. Also a ping to Shhhnotsoloud, who if I recall correctly used to track similar deficient dabs. – Uanfala (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Will do. There are others User:Uanfala, I wasn’t sure how to deal with them but posting them there is a good idea. BilledMammal (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Local culture

I read your RFC about the early Olympic athletes. I think one of the themes in the opposition to this kind of proposal is that they run counter to the m:Vision. The proponents say, "Look, we currently have 🟥🟨🟦🟧🟩🟫 worth of knowledge on the wiki, and we know we're missing knowledge about 🟪⬜️ and probably ⬛️, too, but that 🟧 bit is IMO substandard because it's [fill in the blank: too short, doesn't have enough refs, isn't an important subject, is out of date, doesn't get read, has the wrong POV, etc.], so how about instead of having the sum of all knowledge, we instead have a little bit less than we could right now?

I think that if we established some common ground about whether we actually prefer the sum of all human knowledge (even if that means some sub-standard and incomplete articles) vs if we actually prefer decent-looking articles (even if that means changing "the sum of all human knowledge" to "the fraction of human knowledge that is presented in a way that meets our quality standards"), then we'd be able to make more progress on this. Either the community would set a minimum standard, and articles could be judged against them (we did this once, for BLPs), or the editors who want to get rid of substandard articles would know that wasn't a realistic outcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I don’t think that your interpretation of the vision matches the consensus interpretation on enwiki, and it shouldn’t - it would mean abolishing, for example, the requirement to use reliable sources. BilledMammal (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Technically, there isn't a requirement to "use" reliable sources; there is only a requirement that it must be possible for someone to find a reliable source that says the same thing. But the way we have traditionally understood this is that if it's not possible to verify that information in a reliable source, then it's not part of "the sum of all human knowledge" anyway. (Unverifiable information might be one of the addends, but it's not part of the sum of knowledge. ;-) )

But leaving that aside, it sounds like you would prefer that verifiable (even cited) information not be present in Wikipedia unless that presentation meets a certain standard (e.g., a long enough article). Where undisputed, cited, verifiable statements such as "Alice Athlete competed in the 1904 Olympics for Ruritania" are concerned, it sounds like if you were given a choice between a pathetic little stub, and not having this information in the mainspace at all (i.e., "write a beautiful C-class article" is not an available option), you would choose not having this information in the mainspace at all as the lesser of two evils. Have I correctly understood you view? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

There is a requirement to provide reliable sources for information; additions of unsourced content will typically be reverted.

It was also only one example of a policy that would need to be abolished to support your interpretation and others also exist; WP:DUE, WP:GNG, WP:NOTDATABASE, etc.

I note that these examples already tell us that verifiability, on its own, is insufficient for inclusion as in your example of Alice Althlete; if you want to change this I suggest proposing changes to WP:N and probably to WP:NOT. Personally, I agree that verifiability alone is insufficient. BilledMammal (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

It's poor practice to not cite any sources at all in an article, but WP:N isn't a policy, and nobody would delete User:WhatamIdoing/Christmas candy or any other obviously notable subject merely because sources hadn't been provided yet. If "providing" sources were an absolute requirement, then {{unref}} wouldn't be on one out of every 40 articles.

But as you notice above, I gave my example article not merely one, but two inline citations, so the desire for sources is irrelevant. My question remains unanswered: Would you prefer Wikipedia to not have any article about "Alice Athlete" at all, if the article does not presently meet or exceed your standards for development? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

You misunderstand; the issue with Alice Athlete isn’t that it is unsourced, it’s that it is (presumably) fails WP:GNG - and to answer your question, I don’t want Wikipedia to have any articles that fail GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Why do you assume that an article about an Olympic athlete with two existing inline citations fails GNG? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

When it's written like that? I can also tell you what the two inline citations are - Olympedia and sportsreference. It's possible that sources exist elsewhere that would allow it to demonstrate GNG, but I think that is unlikely. BilledMammal (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

And when it's written by me? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Then I'm slightly less confident that the sources are Olympedia and sportsreference, but having seen thousands of examples of such sub-stubs written by dozens of different editors I would still expect that these hypothetical sources do not contribute to GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Concur with BilledMammal. Their aim at the RfC is good and there are heaps of wikipedia rules such as WP:NOTDATABASE, WP:NOTWHOSWHO

WP:MASSCREATION, WP:MEATBOT, WP:BOTUSE

(all part of policies) to cite a few that would have prevented the masscreation of the bio stubs if they were only enforced.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

You know, I keep seeing people link to NOTDATABASE, and almost every time, I think about the problems we have because Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions. WP:NOT mentions databases once. Specifically, it says that Wikipedia itself is not to be used as a lyrics database. It does not say that we cannot cite databases. It does not say that we cannot include information that some editors believe is better suited for a database. It only says to not fill articles about songs with lyrics.

Since I believe that one of the iron laws of the web is that every click costs readers, let me paste the exact, complete text of NOTDATABASE here for you:

• Lyrics databases. An article about a song should provide information about authorship, date of publication, social impact, and so on. Quotations from a song should be kept to a reasonable length relative to the rest of the article, and used to facilitate discussion, or to illustrate the style; the full text can be put on Wikisource and linked from the article. Most song lyrics published after 1927 are protected by copyright; any quotation of them must be kept to a minimum, and used for direct commentary or to illustrate some aspect of style. Never link to the lyrics of copyrighted songs unless the linked-to site clearly has the right to distribute the work. See Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources for full discussion.

Let me know if you see anything in there that says we can't or shouldn't write proper encyclopedia articles about subjects that other websites have recorded in a database. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

What you quoted is WP:NOTLYRICS; the full text of WP:NOTDATABASE is slightly more extensive, and includes the sentence To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. BilledMammal (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

So you argue that lyrics databases are not allowed but numbers and tables yes? Check WP:NOTSTATS which comes below lyrics. Statistics should enhance readability, provide context. Also see WP:NOTMIRROR and compare with articles such as this, this and this. They are usually without inline citations but include a mirror page as a general reference as the only other reference other than the winner of the last tournament.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I quoted the only line in WP:NOT that contains the word database.

Numbers and tables obviously are allowed, because numbers and tables show up in many thousands of articles, including FAs. The point of NOT is to say "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information...Wikipedia articles should not be: Summary-only descriptions of works – Lyrics databases – Excessive listings of unexplained statistics – Exhaustive logs of software updates". It's an error to interpret the WP:UPPERCASE shortcut as meaning "Editors are not allowed to include information they found in a database" or "Editors are not allowed to cite databases {only | ever}"; that's not what the policy says. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

There is a false dichotomy lying behind the discussion here. "information not be present in Wikipedia" is being conflated with having a stub. It is perfectly possible for information to be present on Wikipedia, and in an article. "between a pathetic little stub, and not having this information in the mainspace at all" is not a choice we have to make. We have other options. CMD (talk) 02:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we do, but I'm trying to understand BilledMammal's personal view on whether pathetic little stubs are inherently so bad that we should not have any information, rather than have a pathetic little stub. As a parallel, we have a strong community consensus that no information is preferable to false or misleading information. I want to know whether BilledMammal has a similar view for pathetic little stubs: Is no information preferable to a one- or two-sentence stub? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Can I ask why you want to better understand my views on sub-stubs? And to answer your question, it depends on the sub-stub; sometimes no information will be better, other times it won't - although in almost all cases, if the information does warrant inclusion on Wikipedia, it would be better off in a higher level article than in another sub-stub, as pointed out by CMD. BilledMammal (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Back in the day, we had this idea that any (decent) information was a positive contribution towards the cause. If you wrote something like "Black Beauty is a novel by Anna Sewell, consisting of the fictional autobiography of a horse." (a substub without sources), then people were happy about it. That particular sub-stub was created by an admin in 2003.

But some newer editors (maybe you?) seem to think this type of contribution is actively harmful to Wikipedia. While most older English speakers will recognize that Black Beauty is an obviously notable book, and today the article (though still shorter than it could be) has 1,500 words and 27 sources, that kind of contribution also reduces the average article size, provides less information than you'd get from a Google search page, and increases the number of unsourced articles. I'd like to find someone who is willing to publicly own that position, instead of dancing around it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this when you originally posted it. To preface this, I will note that the needs of Wikipedia have changed; what was a positive for the encyclopedia 20 years is not necessarily a positive today. One such example is the original version of Black Beauty; in 2003, it improved the encyclopedia. Today, it would make it worse.

I'm less concerned about reducing the average page size; while generally a lot of short articles on the same topic suggests they should be merged, it isn't always the case (and once again, that reminds me to get back to my effort to upmerge species articles). However, I am willing to own the position that unsourced articles make Wikipedia worse, as it reduces our overall reliability, and that articles that provide the reader less information that they can get from a Google search page makes Wikipedia worse, as it causes readers to waste their time. BilledMammal (talk) 01:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Malherbe's parakeet#Requested move 12 March 2023

Can you explain why you closed this discussion instead of relisting? The discussion was still ongoing and producing productive conversation in terms of deciding the best alternative name for the title, and your close seems extremely premature. Turnagra (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

@Turnagra: For that discussion to be able to come to a consensus the move request would have needed to be altered to propose the move of Orange-fronted parakeet. In a move request with a clear proposed initial title I would have done that, but as this move request lacked that I would also have needed to alter your proposed move to have an explicit target of Orange-fronted parakeet (New Zealand); given that this would have implied you supported that title I considered that inappropriate under WP:TPO.

Instead, I considered the best option was to close that move request and provide space for a new one, with clearly defined moves, to be opened. I still encourage you to do that, but if you prefer that I undo my close and relist I will do so. BilledMammal (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd prefer you undoing the close - the reason I'd started a move request was entirely because I wasn't clear on what the best title would be for it and wanted to get other editors' views - almost as a pseudo RfC. While we're definitely moving towards a title and that may involve altering the move request to include a move of Eupsittula canicularis, I don't think we're quite at the point yet and I'd appreciate getting further input from other editors. Turnagra (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Done. BilledMammal (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Iraqi conflict

Hi, in your relisting statement at Talk:Iraqi conflict (2003–present), you said it "would require that article to be notified if editors want to explore that possibility further", but "that article" is simply a redirect to the same page in question; there is only one single page about an "Iraqi conflict". I don't know if that changes anything in the correctness of your decision to relist. Avilich (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know; I have struck that part of my relisting comment. However, it doesn't change the decision to relist; that proposal has still received insufficient discussion to determine whether there is a consensus for it. BilledMammal (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Closed RM for Russkaya mysl

Hi. At Talk:Russkaya mysl#Requested move 10 March 2023 would you write a closing summary that explains which guidelines determined the decision and why it was “not moved” rather than “no consensus”? Thanks.  —Michael Z. 22:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Done. BilledMammal (talk) 02:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you.

One of the opposers wrote “total number of mentions is statistically significant” and, as far as I can tell, did not give an argument supporting the opposition, except that they demanded more information of some type that I could not discern and seemed impossible to produce. It looks like two of three stated that COMMONNAME was achieved.

In these circumstances it seems unfair to convert it into a WP:VOTE, without at least relisting.  —Michael Z. 07:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

They were asking for a count of the number of occurrences, to help determine if there was sufficient use for WP:NATURAL to apply, and for information about what sources it appears in. The first is hard to obtain from ngrams but not impossible - you can obtain it by downloading and processing the raw data. I have done this before, such as at Talk:Good cop, bad cop. The second is not possible to obtain from ngrams, but the corpus used for ngrams is similar to the corpus used for google books, allowing such information to be obtained there.

When assessing the discussion I found that the editors opposing the proposal disagreed with the WP:COMMONNAME argument; they weren't convinced that there was sufficient usage in English-language sources to establish a natural name. BilledMammal (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The problem isn't that it's so BOLD it's that it is so INVOLVED

Closing the Vector discussion feels defensible because it was going nowhere. An appropriately BOLD action in my view. Closing it and saying what the process should be when you are going to (I would imagine based on your participation so far) be an active participant in is exactly why we say INVOLVED editors need to think more carefully about taking actions. That conversation should stay closed so I'm not going to undo it to make a point but I will come here to make the point. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate you doing so, and thank you for the feedback; I see your point about the issues regarding INVOLVED actions and the instructions I included in the close. To partially address that, I've toned them down to suggestions. BilledMammal (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Just a note about your comment on the infobox. I agree with you that creating RfC's for each one of these is a huge waste of time, but adding the infobox is being fought every single time by generally the same group of editors. It's a frustrating process since the boxes are generally viewed by the communtity as an improvement. You are right that most have successfully passed through RfC, but there are exceptions.

I've attempted to get some kind of policy agreement on a path forward, but haven't had much luck. If a group of editors are going to fight this every single time what other recourse is there to get it added? Thanks! Nemov (talk) 14:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The only other recourse is to take the editors involved to WP:ANI for stonewalling and tendentious editing, but I don't know how well such an effort will go - I know in the past infoboxes were a very contentious topic, with a few ARBCOM cases. BilledMammal (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and I think one of the issues here is the particular editors who have these opinions (i.e. they write lots of featured articles). I am generally not a user who believes any cabal talk, I want to make that clear. But my assessment of this is that there are basically a half dozen users who go around and comment on each other's disputes on various different unrelated articles defending the position of one of those users. One such dispute has been adding infoboxes (which these users are opposed to in nearly every instance I have seen). They also do this on a number of featured articles, to keep their preferred version, and it is quasi-endorsed by their interpretation of WP:FAOWN.

The last time one of these editors was brought to AN/ANI, it became much more about how "valuable a contributor" that user was, rather than their disruptive and rude attitude or other bludgeoning/misconduct. I think that entire process left a very sour taste in my mouth, and gives me (and I'm sure many others) very little interest in pursuing anything in AN/ANI about this or any related dispute. Better to just do this the old fashioned way and establish consensuses where applicable (not every article needs an infobox, but some do!) that these users cannot contravene in such a concerted group. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Shibbolethink. That would be a difficult road to travel. I don't think infoboxes are a contentious topic now, but any discussion at the ANI level will prove to be unproduction because of things that happened many years ago. Nemov (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

LOCAL culture (/vent)

I'm relieved you noticed and weighed in on that coach AfD, after that initial wave of !votes from CFB members I was beginning to think old-timey American football was returning to its previous unassailable status. Sportspeople AfDs in general have gotten to the point where (as predicted) pretty much everyone who used to !vote "keep meets [SSG]" now just insists the coverage of those subjects meets GNG. And lately there is a critical mass of editors of that alignment participating that we get some painfully drawn-out affairs[2][3] (some of the mid-February AfDs I referenced in the first NSPORT talk link are still ongoing); it's at the point where the same group of editors will just refbomb a dozen transactional announcements, non-independent/secondary releases, routine local news, even facebook and blog posts; declare WP:HEY; like-minded editors will come in and vouch that GNG is met; and the AfD will get closed as keep even if there is detailed P&G-based dissection of the sources. [4][5][6] Then there was this shameful exercise where a 15-year-old playing exclusively U-17 footy who had just two hyper-local interview sources with two independent sentences each was initially kept (and would have been an easy endorse at DRV because the keeps were a supermajority and "policy-based"), thankfully reopened, and then finally after attention from the wider community was closed as an uncontroversial delete (with the statline N-K-K-K-K-D-K-WK-(closed)-(reopened)-K-D-D-D-D-D-D (plus the last two keeps were struck)).

Anyway, some of the main points of contention I've identified are 1) NOTNEWS (and actually even ROUTINE) applies to sportspeople and that transactional announcements fall under that category; 2) a reporter repeating what the subject/affiliates said or felt is primary/non-independent even if the material isn't in quotes (e.g. here, for this source); 3) "routine" can be linked to how LOCAL the coverage is, as stated in YOUNGATH, and this should probably be mentioned at both NOTNEWS and NSPORT; 4) how NBASIC interacts with SPORTSBASIC (IMO if the only claim to significance a subject has is sports-related, SPORTSBASIC should override NBASIC); 5) GNG/NBASIC is not met with mundane details (like unremarkable high school/college stats, quotes of primary descriptions of the subject, promotional pieces in local news), and filling a bio with such details violates NOT; 6) SUSTAINED applies to everyone and is not overcome with snippets of coverage existing outside the main period of attention. I'm thinking we're overdue for a discussion on at least one of these points, and I'd be especially interested in what your thoughts are on locality of coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I think there are three aspects we should try to address in the short term. First, we need to address the canvassing of WikiProjects; WikiProject College football was notified here, despite clearly being partisan on the topic of the notability of involved individuals - I suspect that is why you saw that wave of CFB keep !voters. I am planning to open a discussion at WP:VPI about a broad overhaul to canvass; a preliminary discussion can be found here.

Second, I think it may be worth discussing whether WP:AUD should be split from WP:NCORP and applied more widely; I suspect there would be consensus to do so. This would address the issue of "local papers writes once about person"; I've noticed this to also be an issue when people write self-promotional articles, so there is a good reason beyond resolving this dispute to do so.

Third, I think we should update the procedural rules of AfD to make it clear that refbombing is not tolerated; editors are expected to provide their strongest few (perhaps even explicitly defined as three) sources. This should make the entire process less onerous for all involved, both inside and outside of this topic area. BilledMammal (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Yep, as soon as I saw those !votes coming in I checked CFB. I agree that WikiProject canvassing is a real issue and I had been keeping tabs on the the INAPPNOTE thread in the hopes more discussion would arise from it.

I'm less optimistic about AUD gaining consensus, as there are a lot of seasoned editors who rely very heavily on local news to write articles. I think a smaller step would go over better, such as clarifying that the language and terms used by NEVENT are derived straight from NOTNEWS and are applicable elsewhere (which is already established with e.g. NSPORT's invocations of ROUTINE and local); otherwise why would there be guidance at ROUTINE that could only realistically apply to non-events ("local-person-wins-award"). It's pretty clear that local coverage already frequently fits the definition of "routine" given in NOTNEWS, so this should also be made more explicit there and at NSPORT.

And of course I agree the AfD rules need updating re: refbombing. JoelleJay (talk) 02:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

RE: NEVENT, that is a good idea.

I'll create a discussion at WP:VPI soon; my current thoughts are that the initial topics should be:

1. Whether the items listed at APPNOTE are exceptions to INAPPNOTE, or merely examples
2. Whether it is appropriate to notify WikiProjects that an editor might have reasonable cause to believe to are partisan on a topic
3. Whether there should be a requirement to inform discussions of any notices issued.

BilledMammal (talk) 03:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

My thought is that drawing a line between truly trivial coverage (stats lists, game narratives, named in a list of players) and the plausibly significant (including local coverage) would cut back on the "Look! I found 12 sources!" and "Look! They found 12 sources!" !votes and force a more in-depth discussion about a smaller number of sources. I'm thinking this would be fairly well accepted at the community level and would give us an objective way to point out clearly disruptive !voting. –dlthewave ☎ 03:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on the best way to do this? My thought was that by limiting editors to x number of sources we don't need to worry about pre-defining what sources are truly trivial; it should instead force editors to exclude such sources as they won't be convincing and due to the limited number of sources they are able to provide will be easy to identify as unconvincing. BilledMammal (talk) 03:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

As a user who generally is more inclusive as to what can be considrerd WP:SIGCOV, I would also certainly get behind a limit to refbombig. I believe it needs to be a specific number (I would say three or four) since saying "a few" sources is ambiguous. If a user has 15 passing/routine/primary sources where a couple "might" have GNG content, nobody needs to see anything more than those couple. If a user has 15 legitimate GNG sources, then three would suffice in keeping an article (though such an article is unlikely to be on AFD in the first place). Unfortunately I don't even think some of the AFD users look at the source, they just see hits from publications they may recognize and post them. Also, I agree something should be done about wikiproject canvassing (across the board, not just on sports wikiprojects) as I do not like being dragged into accusations that my vote was canvassed just because I have an interest in American football and (soccer) football topics and happen to follow those AFD-sort lists. Frank Anchor 14:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:THREE is fairly well accepted and might be a good starting point for formalizing something, however if 4 editors each brought 3 sources we'd be right back to where we are now. One option would be to leave talk page warnings for the most egregious refbombers and go to ANI if they continue to violate WP:SIGCOV. –dlthewave ☎ 20:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

User:RoySmith/Three best sources ("WP:THREE") is a user essay in which one editor says, of himself, that " I'm not willing to slog through dozens of sources to evaluate them. I am, however, willing to look at a few sources in detail if somebody else (i.e. you) does the footwork to figure out which ones are the best." It's not really a rule that you can require others to follow. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that setting a limit on the number of sources presented would be the best option. That would really cut down on both the amount of work editors who actually evaluate sources have to put in and the mounting irritation doing so evokes.

As for the wikiproject canvassing, I think this will be really tricky. Some projects on broad areas, particularly academic ones, won't have much partisanship because their focus is on quality/accuracy of how their subjects are presented rather than on increasing the number of standalone articles on them. It's the projects on topics with extensive database entries that might fit some presumptive notability criterion, can be churned out as stubs using a template, demand no specialized understanding to summarize, have obsessive fanbases or activists for a cause etc. that are the issue. And it's especially the case for projects that have at some point developed their own walled garden of notability criteria that is divorced from that of the rest of wikipedia (e.g. highways). I don't know if there's a great way of distinguishing these project types; certainly anyone in the fanclub ones will strongly object to restrictions on AfD notifications. JoelleJay (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

On the three numbered items, I think that #2 has zero chance of changing (every organized group of editors will defend their right to be informed of discussions that interest them), and that your wording is poor. Specifically, if the rules say not to do this if/when "an editor might have reasonable cause to believe to are partisan on a topic", is this based on the poster's belief that they're partisan, or is it based on any other editor's belief? Because you might notify a group that you expect to be 100% impartial, but I might see that same group as wildly biased, and are you just supposed to read my mind to know that I might think that was unfair?

Also, couldn't the same objection be made for anyone signed up to specific subjects in Wikipedia:Feedback request service? Maybe the reason someone signs up under Wikipedia:Feedback request service#Society, sports, and culture is so that they'll be able to weigh in on every sports-related RFC.

But on the flip side: Subject-matter based WikiProjects are the best place to find people who know what they're talking about. If you have an RFC about COVID-19, and you don't notify Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine or Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19, the quality of responses you should expect might be the same as if you posted the question on social media. That's not exactly helping us write an encyclopedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• The proposals above, even if successful, won't mean much if you can't get administrators to enforce them. Currently, AfD outcomes depend largely on how many show up, less so on the actual rules. If a host of editors claim that winning a Google docs poll counts towards ANYBIO, and that a copy of a Facebook post is a reliable and independent source, they will be believed even when contradicted, simply because they are numerous. In the case of sports articles, whenever you see the usual suspects citing dubious sources in AfD, the outcome largely depends on how many of the inclusionist or deletionist side show up. No closer is going to actually check if sources are independent or non-routine, even if the guidelines do lay these requirements. Avilich (talk) 23:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

"(as predicted) pretty much everyone who used to !vote "keep meets [SSG]" now just insists the coverage of those subjects meets GNG" - Yup. Something like WP:100WORDS needs to be added to WP:SIGCOV. I fully support effectively moving WP:AUD and WP:ORGIND from NCORP to WP:N. To me, the question about WikiProject notification is: is there a legitimate reason to post on the talk page, when there are already WP:DELSORTs on the front page of every WikiProject? It works in reverse, though, too: what does it matter what is posted on the talk page, when there are already DELSORTs on the front page? Levivich (talk) 00:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I like the idea of quantify SIGCOV, but I suspect adding something like 100WORDS will result in people pointing at interviews that contain 20 words of independent coverage and say "100 words, meets the requirements".

For WikiProject notifications, my main question is what benefit does such notifications bring, regardless of the presence of DELSORT? I don't believe that this is a problem limited to deletion discussions; the Olympics RfC and the Maps RfC both contain examples of excessive notification of WikiProjects. BilledMammal (talk) 01:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, setting a numerical lower bound would definitely result in editors counting every word that appears in a source regardless of whether it contains anything encyclopedic. NOTNEWS is already completely ignored at AfD, so that would automatically let in every single person profiled in the local-interest section of a small-town paper. JoelleJay (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

About refbombing/three sources: I've long felt that it should be a rule that every "Keep" !vote (for a topic that must meet GNG) must link to two plausible GNG sources, or point to two sources already linked in another !vote, or else it can't be considered by the closer. Two and only two. Delete !voters must say why the two sources linked by keep !voters aren't GNG, or else their vote isn't considered. By requiring two and only two, we ensure "multiple" while keeping the discussion laser-focused on whether there exist two GNG sources or not (because if the answer is yes, there is no need to consider a third source for purposes of AFD). I think we'd have more efficient, productive, civil, and correct AFDs if we had a two-source-rule. Levivich (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

"For the closer to be permitted to consider a keep !vote that argues a topic meets GNG, the !vote must either contain two sources that the editor believes meets the GNG criteria, or it must refer to a !vote that contains two sources. !Votes that contain more than two sources will be considered refbombing and may not be considered."

"For the closer to be permitted to consider a delete !vote that argues a topic does not meet GNG, the !vote must either argue why previous presented sources do not meet GNG, or refer to a !vote that presents such an argument."

Word smithing needed, but I think that wording might find consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 01:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd rather have 5000 un(der)sourced permastubs than whatever puritanical hellscape this is that you're envisioning. –Fredddie™ 03:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd also rather have 5000 permastubs than the hundreds of thousands (millions?) that are out there now. Levivich (talk) 03:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

5000 or 500 million permastubs; I don't care. There's still more value in them than in whatever is going on here. Policy purity will be the death of Wikipedia. –Fredddie™ 04:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

500 million permastubs would be the death of Wikipedia, but can you explain what issues you believe regulating conduct at AfD in this manner would cause? It may be that the proposal can be modified to address your concerns. BilledMammal (talk) 04:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

What really gets me going are the policy wonks who don't write articles trying to set and enforce policies on those who do. If we're creating ridiculous proposals, maybe AfD should be limited to those who have written a Featured Article. –Fredddie™ 04:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I would be OK with that rule, it would solve a ton of problems in one fell swoop, but it won't get consensus. Levivich (talk) 05:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The FA criteria would need to include "subject demonstrably passes notability requirements with flying colors" first. And given the "Neil Harvey..." debacle and some of those road articles it's clear reviewers don't actually pay attention to things like "don't base an article on primary sources" and "don't base an article on sources that don't cover the subject directly". JoelleJay (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@Fredddie, BilledMammal has created some articles: https://xtools.wmflabs.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/BilledMammal The mainspace doesn't appear to be a key focus for him, but we need editors with a variety of interests and skills, not just article creators. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware we need all types of editors and I wasn't singling out BilledMammal specifically; it's much wider than that. I'd like to think that the people I decry have their noses so far into the policies that they can only see them in black and white when in reality, there is color, nuance, and even gray areas within them. Our policies and guidelines are not supposed to be rigid (per WP:5P5) so the prostration to GNG (as seen above), for example, just doesn't make sense to me. –Fredddie™ 21:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Domestic slave trade (disambiguation)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Domestic slave trade (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Frak

Would you mind reverting your close of the Frak RM? Looks like I just missed it. I know it probably won’t matter to the outcome but I’d like to weigh in. Thx. —В²C ☎ 02:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Done. BilledMammal (talk) 03:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Thx. Done as well. --В²C ☎ 05:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The article MediaWorks New Zealand should be restored to it’s former form

Hey @BilledMammal, I think that the article MediaWorks New Zealand should be restored to its former form, because it will confuse readers otherwise. Additionally, a separate Warner Bros. Discovery New Zealand article, should then be created, to reduce confusion to readers. Yours sincerely, Bas. Regards, Bassie f (his talk page) 04:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Bassie f, there is no clear version to revert to that would not result in the loss of content. However, I encourage you to WP:BOLDly make any edits you believe are appropriate, and to create a new article at Warner Bros. Discovery New Zealand. BilledMammal (talk) 05:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Did this task, just 10mins ago, I can’t remember exactly. Regards, Bassie f (his talk page) 10:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For pushing against a false consensus with a well-thought out and reasonable close review. Toa Nidhiki05 17:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Egyptian Super Cup

Articles have been moved to wrong titles. The editors who voted were not aware of the matter and did not bring reliable sources supporting their opinion. Sakiv (talk) 23:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The editors who voted were aware that this might not be what they are officially called, but believed that using the year the game was played in as the title was both more consistent and less confusing - the latter of which I interpreted as being in reference to our policies or recognizability and precision. BilledMammal (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I am the one who constantly edits these articles and is aware of the news of Egyptian football, and I can confirm that the Super Cup is referred to by the season it belongs to and not based on the year in which it was played. I will appeal your decision.--Sakiv (talk) 00:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

When you do please notify me. BilledMammal (talk) 00:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, I will leave the articles and you take care of them if that's good for you. I cited several sources supporting my request, but you completely ignored them and move them to names that have nothing to do with reality. Sakiv (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand why the 2015 Egyptian Super Cup match was played on 14 September 2014 and not sometime in calendar year 2015, nor why it was necessary for you to move the page twice when you closed the RM. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Hang on

While there was obviously a fairly generalized no consensus wash out across my Arab conquest RMs (thanks to some rather dogged and off-topic opposition in defiance of all things source-based), I do not see this extending to the Egypt discussion, and I am not willing to let this one go quite so quietly. In this discussion there were numerically speaking two support votes (three including my own), one neutral vote (changed from mild support), and one oppose. That is a 3:1 voting ratio. Policy-wise, we had WP:COMMONNAME, based on this mountain versus a molehill, against the following line of argumentation: "Arab is an ethnicity, "Muslims" at this time refers to the polity ..." - no sources, no policy in sight, and followed by some walls of text. As the neutral voter (an oppose voter in the other discussions) concedes: "the ngram shows that the proposed title is a bit more than twice as common in recent published sources". You have mentioned WP:CONSISTENT in your closing summary, but the only one to mention consistency in the actual discussion was myself. Even so, you mention the references to other discussions, where some consistency-based arguments are made regarding other similar pages. However, I do not see any evidence that you have weighed the competing consistency arguments, i.e.: either my overarching consistency case that "*INSERT RELIGION ADHERENT" conquest" is not a format used anywhere else on or off-wiki, or the point that this conquest is part of the Arab–Byzantine wars, a rare A-class in this genre of articles that contrasts with the rather unpolished and neglected C-classes that more generally abound. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:50, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

As the neutral voter (an oppose voter in the other discussions) concedes - that's a good point; I hadn't considered how they switched from oppose elsewhere to supporting in that discussion. I'll go and review my close shortly. BilledMammal (talk) 08:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Done. BilledMammal (talk) 09:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Plz add player

Plz add this player https://www.sofascore.com/player/sadek-abdellahelhadj/1384990 197.200.243.240 (talk) 13:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)