User talk:FOARP

Invitation

Hello FOARP, we need experienced volunteers.

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, it basically boils down to checking CSD, notability, and title). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions. You can apply for the user-right HERE.
• If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message at the reviewer's discussion board.
• Cheers, and hope to see you around.

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

Happy Holidays!

Hike395 is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

— hike395 (talk) 21:55, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

A belated cheers from me! FOARP (talk) 08:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Opinion sought on Geostub AFDs

Hi Foarp, I wanted to get your opinion. I've been reading talk pages and the recent rfc about notability on wikipedia. My thinking is most of the AFDs that come up, can be dealt with by just a boiler plate argument for delete or merge. I want to write one and use it. Would that be frowned upon by anyone that matters?James.folsom (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I would steer away from using boilerplate text. FOARP (talk) 08:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Bloody flipping hell

There's another huge placenames dump: basically all of Myanmar was put in back in 2010 by one of the usual offenders, using (supposedly) GMaps and Bing maps as the source. Tehre are of course hundreds of "populated places". And I suspect the loyal opposition will do anything to prevent a mass deletion. Mangoe (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I’ve had my eye on these for years. It’s the usual mix of GNS spam and real places. The GNS data would (judging by the source of the Korean place-names) likely have come from military maps dated back to WW2 so, yeah, accuracy may be an issue. No blame on Slim and Stillwell’s men - they weren’t to know that the half-understood location names they wrote down whilst advancing through the Burmese jungle were going to get turned in to articles in an encyclopaedia ~70 years in the future. FOARP (talk) 08:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Unreferenced articles February 2024 backlog drive

WikiProject Unreferenced articles | February 2024 Backlog Drive
There is a substantial backlog of unsourced articles on Wikipedia, and we need your help! The purpose of this drive is to add sources to these unsourced articles and make a meaningful impact. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles cited. Remember to tag your edit summary with [[WP:FEB24]], both to advertise the event and tally the points later using Edit Summary Search. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you have subscribed to the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Recognizability

Re the close at Talk:King of Malaysia, recognizability in WP:CRITERIA is specifically tailored to be about "someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area". Given more articles use YDPA, including both the sources on the page and those presented in the RM, YDPA is quite plainly a name that will be recognizable to someone familiar with the subject area. Very odd to read the idea that this more used name is less recognizable to someone familiar with the subject area as being "incontestable". CMD (talk) 19:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

It was, though, a point endorsed by a number of people in the discussion. However recognizable you believe YDPA to be (and it surely means something that we are writing this as an acronym because it is easier to do so), the point that the proposed title was more recognizable (e.g., easier, more familiar, or similar terminology) was one put forward/supported in the discussion by GoodDay, Traumnovelle, Killuminator, Kaiixin, VectorVoyager, and Azarctic by my count. In the face of such an strong numerical endorsement, it would take a particularly weak argument to close that as not moved, and there is no obvious serious weakness with the argument that people familiar with the subject of the Politics of Malaysia (or monarchy in general) are going to find a fully-descriptive English-language name made up of relatively simple words more recognizable than a name that is not even in the English language nor a common currency in English-language discussion in the world at large. FOARP (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

A point being endorsed does not make something "incontestable". At any rate, many editors you list there don't mention recognizability at all. GoodDay did use the word, but phrased it about general English language rather than recognizability as defined by WP:CRITERIA. Traumnovelle's argument was explicitly opposite to recognizability: they note it as better for "anyone unfamiliar", whereas recognizability refers to "someone familiar". As for your last point, Yang di-Pertuan Agong is used in the English language, hence its use in the English language sources in the article. The wider support count is also poor, given how some seem made up at best. CMD (talk) 13:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

You are welcome to seek review on this if you wish. I cannot of course predict how that will turn out, but I doubt anyone is going to seriously accept any serious error, even from the point of view of someone familiar with Malaysian politics, in the proposition that "King of Malaysia" is more recognisable than a term that we are abbreviating even in this conversation because of its complexity.

Here's where each of the editors I referenced above, according to my reading of the discussion, apparently endorsed the point that King of Malaysia was more recognisable than YDPA:

• GoodDay - "as an english language reader, the title "King of Malaysia" is recognizable"
• Traumnovelle - "King of Malaysia makes much more sense to anyone unfamiliar with the Malayan language or decent familiarity with Malayan politics/culture". I understand your point that the WP:CRITERIA talks about familiarity with the subject, but Traumnovelle appears to think "familiarity with the subject" is not the same as familiarity with Malay-language terms, and that it would require a decent (i.e., high) degree of familiarity to recognise this name.
• Killuminator - "Support as more recognizable"
• Kaiixin - "YDPA is in the Malay language (we are on the English wiki), and King of Malaysia is known to both locals and outsiders". Kaiixin does not explicitly use the term "recognisability" but this is clearly an argument based on "King of Malaysia" being more recognisable than a Malay-language term. I understand your point is that the term is also used in some English-language texts, but this does not appear to have been endorsed by many other editors in the discussion.
• VectorVoyager - "per nom and ease. King of Malaysia is used officially in sources and even if its not the primary official usage its still the common and easier usage in English." References to ease of use are essentially references to recognisability.
  

Additionally Fandi89 endorsed Killuminator's argument whilst Azarctic endorsed Kaiixin's position. FOARP (talk) 14:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

We are abbreviating the term because it is long, for the same reason we write DRC rather than Democratic Republic of the Congo. GoodDay as mentioned refers to the English language, rather than anything related to "someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area". Traumnovelle as mentioned makes entirely the opposite point. Kaiixin's argument is again unrelated to "someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area". VectorVoyager's point was entirely unsupported, so far we have a single tweet with a screenshot of one document issued literally this year. The claim of common usage was also entirely unsupported. On your inference, recognisability is "The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize", rather than being related to ease of use, so I'm unsure how the latter could be an essential reference to the former. As to the point I made, it seems slightly misinterpreted. The term is used in almost all English language texts, including explicitly every one that is currently a source on the relevant wikipage (as well as in far more sources, as was demonstrated in the discussion). CMD (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid I read what they said differently. Particularly I don't agree that Traumnovelle is saying the "opposite" of King of Malaysia being more recognisable than YDPA, as this is to interpret their !vote as the opposite of what was clearly intended.

However, there's an easy way of confirming what they intended: @GoodDay, Traumnovelle, Killuminator, Kaiixin, and VectorVoyage: - do you agree with my interpretation of what you said or with CMD's? FOARP (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I think my vote doesn't leave much ambiguity. King of Malaysia is a recognizable term used in international media. YDPA (which I wouldn't know how to write without going copy/paste) is a Wikipedianism. I wouldn't support keeping the original Malay phrase just because that's what longtime editors are used to seeing. Killuminator (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

"King of Malaysia" is the recognizable title. The other title? I can't even spell correctly, let alone understand. PS - Recommend we start implementing "King of Malaysia" in the related-bios, as it's more recognizable & thus avoid the redirects. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I said that King of Malaysia is more recognisable to anyone who is unfamiliar with the Malayan language. (Which compromises most Wikipedia readers), I only entered the discussion because I clicked on the article after being featured on ITN due to having no clue what the YDPA was. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

This seems pretty clear. I guess WP:AUDIENCE is also worth mentioning here as to who text should be recognisable for. I don't think the idea that people weren't arguing for recognisability, or even arguing the opposite of recognisability, is supported by the explanation from the editors concerned as to what they intended when they wrote their arguments.

@Chipmunkdavis - my advice is to wait a decent time period and if it turns out that the support !voters were wrong about e.g., use quickly transitioning (or already having transitioned) to the English version of the name, then raise another RM to return to the old title. However, I have to say that this seems unlikely - I see The Times, Sky News, Tatler, Reuters, and the Guardian all using the term "King of Malaysia" in their coverage of the new king so it seems highly reliable sources are at least not avoiding this term. Compare and contrast this with non-English terms like Knesset or Taoiseach, where reliable English-language sources often use these terms with minimal explanation on the assumption that they will be recognised by their users. FOARP (talk) 11:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Clear again, as repeated above, that the recognizability being mentioned is not that defined in the WP:CRITERIA. Many English sources have never avoided the phrase, that has never been an issue. I'm not looking to overturn at the moment, what I'm looking for is a close that does not make an odd point about incontestability, and does not rawly count votes which make no sense. (In addition to the couple pointed out at the RM, one of the supports for example, cites three sources as using "Malaysia's king". This is both not the proposed title, but is not used in two of those sources. One does use "King of Malaysia", two use "Yang di-Pertuan Agong".) CMD (talk) 11:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

(Also Knesset and Taoiseach are regularly explained: "Knesset, Israel's parliament", "Ireland has a new taoiseach (prime minister)".) CMD (talk) 11:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Like I said in my close, I am not rawly counting votes, but a count of votes is still a necessary part of assessing the consensus though that should be balanced with an assessment of the strength of arguments. That "King of Malaysia" is more recognisable to our audience than YDPA appears incontestable. You are arguing that it isn't based on a relatively narrow definition of what "someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area" is (from my understanding it would be someone who already knows the official title in Malay of the King of Malaysia), but the place to make that argument was in the RM and I don't see it having been made there. It appears that a substantial opinion in the RM discussion was of the view that actually you would need to be an "expert" (e.g., someone fluent in Malay as was referenced a number of times in the RM discussion) to know what YDPA was. FOARP (talk) 12:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Your close noted the raw count in votes without noting some were really weird. WP:AUDIENCE is for prose, not article titles. As for my definition of someone familiar with the topic and coverage in the RM, the term in question was as stated in the RM both the common name and in every source in the article. It is hard to see how a term almost ubiquitous in relevant sources requires deep expertise, and conversely it is hard to see how someone who has not encountered the common name or read one of the many sources available might be "someone familiar with...the subject area". The argument that you need to be an expert in Malay was not made in the RM; the argument that was made was that there was an alternative term (and in some cases a different alternative term) with more common English words. As you point out with Knesset and Taoiseach, that is not how titling criteria is applied. CMD (talk) 13:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

"The argument that you need to be an expert in Malay was not made in the RM" - sorry, the point that non-Malay-speaking English speakers would not recognise YDPA as easily as King of Malaysia was made repeatedly in the RM discussion. The excerpted quotes from GoodDay, Traumnovelle, Kaiixin, and VectorVoyager above all reference this. Conversely, the argument that this was the wrong standard for recognisability that you are making now was not made in the RM and does not anyway flow automatically from the wording of the PAGs. I can only assess arguments made in the RM (or anyway overridingly coming from the PAGs, which your point does not in my view since it relies on a definition of what some "familiar" with the subject would know that other people in the RM clearly did not agree with).

Since your not seeking an overturn of the close I'm not sure what more there is to discuss on this. I think your best option is to wait and see how usage develops in the future, but reading articles like this one in the Guardian (which does not mention YDPA), this one on Sky News (which name-checks YDPA once but uses King throughout), this one from Reuters (which does not mention YDPA), this one AP (which does not reference YDPA), this one from the Independent (which name-checks YDPA once but uses King throughout), this one from Al-Jazeera (which name-checks YDPA and mentions it in a quote but uses King throughout), this one from Nikkei (which does not mention YDPA), this one from The Hindu (which does not mention YDPA).... I don't think things are likely to move in the direction of YDPA becoming more prevalent barring some decision from the Malaysian monarchy itself. FOARP (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Holit massacre move close

Hi FOARP, thank you for your effort on this close and your compliment. But with all due respect I appeal to you to reverse your decision and let an admin close, even if that takes some, it’s important enough to wait. The outcome of this close is difficult not only because it’s a CTOP, but because it has implications for all articles about warlike action related to unarmed citizens (existing and future). So although I respect your thinking, I would like the close to be by an admin, making the unassailable interpretation of COMMON official having considered these implications, if that’s the outcome. Thanks again. Ayenaee (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Ayenaee - I said in my close that I was happy to vacate if requested, and so I shall do (it may take a bit of time). I'll try to post a request to WP:Closure requests to get someone to close this.

FYI there is a very large backlog in RM at the moment. It's partly driven by I-P disputes but also by a large number of renamings for nobility for some reason. FOARP (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I was responding to your offer which I appreciate as I do your effort. As I said this move has wider implication, so I think it’s worth waiting for an admin close. Ayenaee (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Prince Karl Anton of Hohenzollern (born 1868)

In your close, you wrote that the move was acceptable to the Nom, but I nowhere agreed to it. I am not asking you to undo the close, but to strike this comment from your rationale, since Necrothesp is under the mistaken impression that title agreed at RM. In fact, nobody agreed about anything. Srnec (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

This was one of those "split the difference" closes where it was either close as no consensus or see where people appeared to agree with each other. This appeared to be acceptable to you and since you are not asking for the close to be reversed I assume is still not unacceptable to you, However, I've struck the comment as asked. FOARP (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

It is "acceptable" to me, but I want to be clear that I did not "agree" to it over and against alternatives. In fact, I think disambiguating deceased persons by birth dates alone is silly. It is unfortunate that that is the guideline. I have been opposed to it for as long as I remember. Full date ranges make the most sense. Thank you for striking. Srnec (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

You may think it's silly. I happen to disagree, as do many others (which is why DOB disambiguation generally has consensus at RM). But, in fact, you didn't move them to full date ranges anyway. You moved them from DOB to DOD, knowing very well that this was neither the closure decision at RM nor (as you have just admitted) standard disambiguation. So I'm really not sure why you made the decision to move them. It seems a bit weird. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

You are wrong that I knew very well that this was [not] standard disambiguation. I made a BOLD move after the closure to switch from birth dates to death dates. You reverted. I was about to open a new RM when I checked the guideline and learned that birth dates are usually preferred. I work mainly in per-modern areas where such dates are often unknown. Death dates are the norm in my area. Community consensus is strongly against full date ranges and that is what I have long opposed. Srnec (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. But FOARP had already closed as a move to DOB and then moved them as such. In those circumstances, you really had no good reason to move them again unless you had failed to read both the RM debate and the page history. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Necrothesp - agree. This is not a move allowable under WP:BOLDMOVE since we already just had an RM, and @Srnec (who is saying that the RM move was acceptable to them) should not have done it even if they didn't know about the consensus in favour of DOB. FOARP (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Page moves and broken redirects

Hello, FOARP,

I been seeing a lot of broken redirects, like right here, because you do not leave redirects when you move article talk pages (or any talk pages). Please do so as in this case, another editor had to recreate the missing pages in order to fix all of the broken redirects that then occurred so they would not be deleted. I'm not sure why Page Movers often omit leaving behind a redirect when they move articles and talk pages but it seems to be common behavior and frequently results in broken redirects.

If you don't want to leave a redirect when you move a Talk page then please check "What links here" and correct all of the existing redirects that have become broken. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry Liz, will try harder to cover this. There is a very large backlog at RM and I'm trying to handle it. FOARP (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I

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

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

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

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

Deletion review

Hi FOARP, I wanted to say that I concur with the gist of your comments in the deletion review on lists of airline destinations.

Regarding your comments on airline fandom, I do have to say that the only thing that matters is the arguments, not editors' background. I went too far in the British Airways AfD by trying to be "objective" and reviewing people's contribution histories... You can see what happened in the AfD, and I know what I did was wrong.

It's true, though, that this AfD attracted more attention from the people who actually edit these lists and value them. Naturally it's more likely that they !vote Keep, which is completely fine, but they need to provide strong arguments. I agree with you there that their and other Keep !voters' arguments were weak. Sunnya343 (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Honestly I think it was a mistake bringing an AFD against all of those articles in one go, at least without a statement about what the articles shared and a review to ensure they all shared those characteristics. There's a reluctance to even look at the sourcing for these articles - the fandom wants the discussion to be about how useful the articles supposedly are, or about the bounds of what is encyclopedic, but not about the real content of the articles - but this can be overturned by grouping articles with similar sourcing and pointing out that all of them fail even just on pure sourcing grounds.

Instead the discussion has again become about why Wikipedia should host fan content, which is a discussion that is bound to be fruitless. FOARP (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

In my rationale I essentially wrote that all the lists I was nominating were no different from converting the airline's April 2024 route map into the format of a list. I went into more detail about referencing in the United/Lufthansa/American and Aeroflot AfDs but wanted to be more concise this time. Anyway, the Aeroflot AfD was closed as Keep...

I know that the AN discussion left us with this method of doing multiple AfDs, but given that there is no fundamental difference between any of the lists, whether they're stand-alone or embedded within the parent articles, I don't think this strategy made sense. I'm starting to support the idea of having another RfC that notifies all interested parties as OwenX said. An all-or-nothing RfC. Sunnya343 (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it important for the people who wish to overturn the existing RFC consensus to bring a new one. An AFD cannot overturn an RFC. FOARP (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

That's the thing, people are now inclined to dismiss the 2018 RfC because of its age and limited participation. Actually people had already dismissed it in this February 2018 deletion review. The outcome was summarized in the AfD record: "overturned at review on the basis that a consensus at VPP could not over-ride one at AFD". Sunnya343 (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Which means that an RFC consensus is worthless so long as enough fans turn up to cast "I like this" votes at AFD. If so, what is the point of a further RFC if we are simply going to ignore CONLEVEL? FOARP (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Which means that an RFC consensus is worthless so long as enough fans turn up to cast "I like this" votes at AFD. I agree with you, and that's what I tried to demonstrate in the deletion review. Nevertheless, as long as we continue to point to that 2018 RfC, people will continue to highlight its limited participation, especially from the people who actually maintain the lists. I think the key is to have a widely-notified, well-attended discussion on all of these lists – stand-alone lists, the ones in airline articles, and the ones in airport articles* – and to demonstrate clearly how they undermine our first pillar (not that we haven't done so already...).

*Earlier you'd said that you think the lists in airport articles are different. Do you still feel that way? Consider John F. Kennedy International Airport § Airlines and destinations. Sunnya343 (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I think bringing a much bigger issue into this (and the fans of that issue...) before this issue is even resolved is misguided and unwise. I also think it is unlikely that any RFC is going to change anyone's mind of this since, being fans of this subject matter, they are simply not going to at any point acknowledge that it shouldn't be on Wikipedia - at most, if they engage with any RFC outcome at all, they will simply dismiss it as "Wikilawyering" as they already did immediately after the 2018 RFC. FOARP (talk) 21:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I think bringing a much bigger issue into this (and the fans of that issue...) before this issue is even resolved is misguided and unwise. You may be right. But perhaps there could be an RfC like this:

What action should we take regarding A) the lists of airline destinations in or split from airline articles, and B) the lists of airline destinations in airport articles?

• Option 1: Keep A and B
• Option 2: Delete A only
• Option 3: Delete B only
• Option 4: Delete A and B

This format doesn't leave room for people who think "case by case", though. "Case by case" doesn't make sense since these are all just compilations of flight-schedule data, but people may argue that differences exist.

Anyway, that's just an idea. I agree with ActivelyDisinterested about another RfC: "Having a new RFC that no-one can claim they didn't know about will both deal with these articles and any future issues." Sunnya343 (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an RFC that no-one will claim they didn’t know about. We had people accusing us of hiding the AFDs and we literally posted them to CENT!

I also think we are likely to run in to the typical response to RFCs on questions where policy is already clear: if policy is already clear, why is the RFC even needed? Let the people who want to overturn our existing policies against product-catalogues bring the RFC and let them deal with that response.

Don’t feel that you have to be the one who brings the RFC. In fact, it is better if it is not you since people will simply try to make you out to be a “deletionist troublemaker” - let someone else do it, preferably someone who wants to restore the already-deleted articles. FOARP (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

if policy is already clear, why is the RFC even needed? I agree. I respect the people who maintain the lists; I myself have made hundreds of edits to the ones in airport articles. But we have to be honest: our list of current British Airways destinations is just this map in list format. This is what we've had so many debates about since 2007.

let someone else do it, preferably someone who wants to restore the already-deleted articles You're probably right. You don't know how many discussions I've started over the years about the lists in airport articles... Sunnya343 (talk) 19:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

My only concern is how the RfC question would be worded. If it's not worded properly, people will dismiss it for that reason. This happened in the RfC that I started last year. I also wanted to ask what you think of the comment Thryduulf made in that RfC that starts with There are, at a basic level. In my view, the comment vastly overcomplicates the matter to the point that no discussion of it would be possible. And who is going to create a list in the style of Comprehensive, including most but not necessarily all – "Here's a list of most of the cities that British Airways flies to as of April 2024". Or, "Here's a bunch of lists of the airline's destinations from each decade of its existence". What? Thryduulf appears to be addressing problems that don't exist.

I bring this up because I imagine that he would make the same argument in an RfC limited to the "type A" lists I mentioned above. Sunnya343 (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I would avoid any such RFC wording and let the people who want to restore the already-deleted articles bring the RFC. Don’t try to create a “solve-everything” RFC. The point is the community already approved deleting the majority of these articles and they didn’t only do it based on the 2018 RFC. The onus is on the people who want product-catalogue articles sourced (if they are sourced at all) ultimately to the company that sells those products to justify the existence of those articles. FOARP (talk) 04:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

they didn’t only do it based on the 2018 RFC – Good point. I actually said something similar in the AfD: "It's not necessarily the case that I seek to enforce the RfC. Yes, I believe the RfC closure should be taken into account, as well as the subsequent AfDs. However, the outcome of this AfD should also rest on the argument I made at the top of this page, which is my own argument and is not identical to the closure of the RfC or the rationales of previous nominators."

This makes me think that it would be easier to omit any mention of the 2018 RfC in a future AfD. That way people don't spend time debating whether the RfC consensus is valid; they just focus on the arguments. Sunnya343 (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I also don't think the AFD did somehow cancel out the RFC... how could it when it closed as no consensus? But I understand that others may not share that view. FOARP (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it's confusing. I feel like if the RfC had received the same attention that this AfD did, the outcome would likely have been different, as it was a "solve-everything" RfC that attempted to delete two (former) featured lists, ones with prose, etc. So I agree with you and Rosbif73 about proceeding with bundled AfDs. Sunnya343 (talk) 05:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I had one more question. Is there anything to be done about the lists that have been recreated in the parent articles, e.g. airBaltic § Destinations? I don't edit airline articles much so it's not a big concern of mine, but I wanted to ask. I can already imagine the sequence of events: I delete the list, someone reverts me, I go to the talk page and cite the relevant AfD, they bring up the RfC (even though the AfD wasn't solely based on it), maybe we go to DRN... I don't have the energy for that, and I doubt the wider community does either after all the discussions I've started. Sunnya343 (talk) 06:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

The lists within airline articles at this stage just aren’t a big issue. FOARP (talk) 06:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• You did say in the Air Midwest AfD that It’s time to solve the problem in one go and stop pretending there’s anything worth keeping in this category. I’ve got one more list of another ~100 poorly-sourced articles to go nominate after this one, but then we really should just mass-delete the remaining ~200! My intention isn't to say "gotcha!" though. As you know I agree with your point-of-view on these lists. Sunnya343 (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

  I didn't do it in the end, since I think without a full analysis of the sourcing of each article it is hard to do. FOARP (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

  I know what you mean. I'm just unsure about doing another 20+ AfDs. I feel like the first step should be to move past the 2018 RfC. Sunnya343 (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Sunnya343 - Just to revisit this discussion, we're now approaching ~12 AFDs this month, of which so far all that have been closed have been closed as delete or merge. I'm thinking that if we're re-running the 2018 RFC, the smartest thing to do is just re-run the exact same question that Beeblebrox posted because it's short and to the point, and the question really is whether the 2018 RFC still stands. Any explanation can be written in the first !vote to avoid it becoming part of the question and leading to TL;DR answers.

  I might run one more bundled AFD of any remaining cargo airlines just before posting the question though, just to drive home that these articles really do not survive AFD if there isn't an "it's useful" or "I like it" or "I've heard of this" component to it. FOARP (talk) 11:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think that's a good idea. Being concise is important. I would just say a few things:

  • I'm concerned about the word "should" in the question. When I used that word in the airport list RfC, it led to confusion; see Trovatore's comments. No one seemed to be confused by the wording of the 2018 RfC question, but perhaps we should modify the wording just to be safe?
  • We'd have to make clear which airline destination lists we're talking about, since in my last RfC attempt some people thought I was referring to the lists in airport articles. Others seemed to think the airport and airline lists were basically the same. Ideally we'd address both types, but I know you and others feel that that would be unwise.
  • I believe the RfC would have to be focused on the lists themselves as opposed to articles, otherwise people will rightly argue that RfCs are not a deletion venue. That was a big reason for the uproar after the 2018 RfC. True, most of the standalone lists are just composed of lists, but people shouldn't think that the RfC will directly result in the deletion of articles.

  Sorry if it seems like I'm nitpicking. I think I've just become anxious about the whole process after my prior RfC experiences. Sunnya343 (talk) 01:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

• Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
• Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
• Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
• Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
• Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
• Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
• Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
• Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

you've got mail

Hello, FOARP. 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.

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Email....

I have received an email which was clearly intended for someone else. I can probably guess!

Good luck. Leaky caldron (talk) 08:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah apologies, a dumb mistake on my part! FOARP (talk) 08:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)