User talk:GoodDay/Archive 48

This is an archive of past discussions with User:GoodDay. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Thinkin' about running for administrator

In the new year, I'll be considering running for administrator. Apparently, they're getting low on administrators, or at least not too many are being active. I would however, appreciate a straw poll 'here' on whether it would be a good idea or not. An overwhelming "Yes", would make me give it a go. An overwhelming "No", would avoid me wasting my (and others) time. GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Been almost a year since we first collaborated. I trust your judgement, and your ability to make cogent arguments. See no reason why you'd abuse your tools. However, things like content creation, vandalism reversion, participation in AfD might come up. Would think about, over the next few months, building up a bit of rapport in these circles. Could help your chances. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
PS: if you're looking for a nominator, I might be able to give it a punt. Aware I've not the biggest presence on here, but 2 is better than 1, etc etc. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm cool with that idea. GoodDay (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
And remember: when deciding on whether to run or not, worst-case scenario is that the nomination fails and nothing changes from your current state. Best-case scenario, it passes and you become an admin. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Many years ago. An editor called me a fascist (on my own talkpage), because I disagreed with them over content. My determination to uphold NPoV & go against editors with agendas, hasn't always made me popular ;) GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
I too would support you too, but you know, they're gonna take a long look at all your edits, blocks, and topic bans. Besides all that, admins are expected to be able to help out in some of the technical aspects. Have a look here and see if you can increase your user access levels. Ones to look at trying for might be rollbacker, page mover, and possibly template editor. Getting access to those might help in your future bid for admin. And those access levels can be applied for right away, if you're so inclined. Masterhatch (talk) 00:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
I look forward to that soibangla (talk) 05:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Go for it! SPECIFICO talk 13:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm leaning "no". I seem to detect an impatience concerning hot button issues that I feel to be incompatible with mop ownership. Newimpartial (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I reckon we both sometimes exhibit impatience concerning hot button issues. Anyways, I've put the RfA plans on hold. GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

This is just a bit of general advice, and doesn't reflect my own thoughts on whether you might make a good admin (I'd have to dig a lot deeper into your lengthy record of contributions). So, just on my take of the general community approach to RfA candidates - with your record of blocks, topic bans, and ArbCom case, I don't think you'd have a hope in hell. Sorry if that's blunt, but I mean it for your good. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Been thinking along your lines GD, how bout a dual run? You and me bro. I mean, the River Tyber would foam with blood, etc, but the one thing that could make my own RfA look like a fond childhood memory would be looking next door at yours. Bring on the carnage! 👍 ——Serial 00:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I suspect the RfA questions directed at me, would be tough ones. But, those questions would get direct & honest answers from me :) GoodDay (talk) 00:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

River Tiber foaming with blood? Has Serial gone full Powell? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty: Aeneid, surely?! I admit it's been a while. ——Serial 00:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

D'oh! Yes, that's what he was quoting. Don't worry though: I wasn't really accusing you of being a serial racist from the 1960s. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

You got my support!!!!!! Moxy- 00:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
I hate to say this but your block log shows so many blocks that I don’t think you have much chance. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps. But having been blocked multiple times, would make one less quick to block editors :) GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

It would likely be a support vote from me based on your demeanor, advice and supportive comments to me during hard times. I see that you are competent in content creation, you have good AfD participation, and a half million edits (70 edits per day wow). The block log may be problematic for some editors - but I too have been hair-trigger-blocked once by a for nonsense when I just started editing so I would give you a pass. I think you would be a good admin. Lightburst (talk) 17:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no chance you would pass at RFA with your block log and sanctions. Please don't subject yourself to this. You'll just be getting kicked in the pants for a week or until you withdraw. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, if I do give it go? I won't be withdrawing from it. Having been called a fascist on my talkpage many years ago, over a content dispute, has toughened me :) GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

It's not about if you can take it, it's about the sink of community time it becomes. Everyone (unfortunately) loves a pile-on, and an obviously unsuccessful RFA can use a lot of our most valuable resource, editor time. If you do choose to stand at RFA I urge you to withdraw if it becomes clear that you will not succeed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Will keep in mind. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Driving by, I have to agree with those above, as regards the likely outcome. The current Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Paine Ellsworth 2 (which I'm supporting) shows what can happen to a good, experienced editor with some baggage (arguably less than you). These days RFAs tend to be either passed by acclamation, or fail - probably without that much relationship to the actual strength of the candidate. But unlike SFR, I think if you want to try your chances, you should. But just be aware of and prepared for the likely outcome. Johnbod (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm not expecting to get a landslide of support, in an RfA. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

@GD - if it's alright with you, seeing as you've withdrawn, I can get rid of the page I started. I'll just move it to become my tenth sandbox and blank it. Could be useful one day. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I will just note that the RfA never actually opened: the template would've had to be substituted and the RfA page transcluded. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for sandboxing it. Perhaps conditions will change, someday. GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I see there's still concerns about lack of administrators or at least lack of active administrators. @Tim O'Doherty:, you mentioned nominating me. I'll accept the nomination. GoodDay (talk) 03:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Right-o. Is there a specific time (or date) you had in mind? Don't want to nominate while it's night-time for you. I'm GMT, so it's 15:43 as I write this. Also, if you want it to be today or tomorrow or in the new year, just say when you want it to be; don't want to go ahead if you're unprepared. Thanks - Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm prepared. By all means you may nominate me at any time you wish. PS - I have to appear humble ;) GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll draft an opening statement soon. Expect the nom today or sometime over the weekend. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm about to go ahead. Prepare for lift-off. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

It is now done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I admire your hard work and dedication to Wikipedia and this query is clearly being made in good faith, which I appreciate. With that said, I think you have essentially zero chance of passing an RfA and I advise against running for the reasons outlined by SFR. I'll oppose if you run, although I appreciate your earnestness and your willingness to consider stepping outside of your comfort zone. — SamX [talk · contribs] 05:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I hope you'll ask me questions there (at the RfA), even though you've already made up your mind. GoodDay (talk) 05:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I do already have some questions in mind. — SamX [talk · contribs] 06:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

That's good. I certainly will answer RfA questions directly & honestly. It's a bigger responsibility (being an administrator) & one shouldn't expect the community to give those responsibilities to an editor, blindly. GoodDay (talk) 06:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

It looks like you're going to go through with it, so I'll reiterate: I don't think running for RfA is a good idea. You'll get eaten alive. I know you said you have a thick skin, but you may come away from it wishing you'd never opened that Pandora's box. RfA is one of the few places on the project where people are allowed to be ruthlessly critical of other users and get their pot-shots in, and you might end up reading some very unkind things that you'll wish you hadn't. I think it's also worth noting that, by raising this question on your talk page, you've probably gotten some sampling bias that makes your odds seem higher than they actually are. I suspect that if you'd asked at WP:ORCP or privately chatted with a few admins you'd have gotten a far less optimistic prognosis. Anyways, best of luck and happy holidays. — SamX [talk · contribs] 18:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Not just sampling bias, but outright trolling. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

+1. Seriously, don't do this. — SamX [talk · contribs] 19:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

The worst that can happen? The community chooses 'not' to make me an administrator. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

To quote an old band from your country: "You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet"! Favonian (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Trust me, that's the least of your concerns. It's true that you're not going to be sanctioned for running for RfA unless you do something egregiously boneheaded like violating a topic ban, but the backlash candidates get from RfA can be so severe that it sometimes causes them to quit the project entirely (example 1, example 2). I've also heard of people who seriously considered ending their own lives over things that were said at their RfAs. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but your RfA will almost certainly fail very quickly and decisively and I think going forward with it is a very bad idea. Please reconsider. If you still want to go through with it after reading this, I'm afraid there's nothing I can do to help you. — SamX [talk · contribs] 19:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

You've seen a number of my closes, and have reached out to me for both closes and administrator attention, so I assume you have some trust in my judgement. Please trust me when I say this is not going to be good. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Two questions. 1) Will a failed RfA result in my being site-banned? If so, I will withdraw. 2) In the RfA, am I allowed to answer questions about a certain topic-ban? GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

GD, in itself of course a failed RfA wouldn't result in any kind of block. The question is whether you'd run RfA to be disruptive or pointy, in which case question 2 comes into play. Are you running this RfA in order to answer questions about/draw attention to a certain topic-ban? Valereee (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I won't be using the RfA as a means to make points or to make pot shots at editors, concerning the topic I'm currently banned from. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

As Val points out, you won't be blocked or banned. WP:BANEX has no carveouts for RFA. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks SFR. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Not SFR or an admin so please take these answers with a grain of salt. 1) No. However, your RfA could conceivably provide ammunition if there's a discussion about sanctioning you in the future, so tread carefully. 2) Don't go there. I suppose it'd technically be possible to discuss the events leading up to your topic ban without violating said topic ban, but you'd be skating on extremely thin ice supported by the flimsiest of hair-splitting technicalities and one small step in the wrong direction could result in an AE block. I think the only safe and reasonable option would be to avoid mentioning your topic ban entirely, even if that means leaving a question unanswered. — SamX [talk · contribs] 19:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Speaking of topic bans: There have been 2,183 successful RfAs in Wikipedia's history. To the best of my knowledge, none of the candidates in any of these RfAs were subject to active topic bans. The community generally views topic bans as being disqualifying when considering whether to grant adminship to someone, and it would take a truly remarkable candidate with extraordinary qualifications to buck this trend. To be perfectly frank, you do not fit this description. — SamX [talk · contribs] 19:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware of what you've been pointing out to me. I already know, my RfA will be quite a rough ride. But the community needs administrators & so I'm offering myself an a candidate. If the community rejects me? I'll certainly survive. PS - This isn't an ego-trip for me. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Ego might not have anything to do with it - but a bit of self-respect and self-awareness might not be amiss. (Again, I'm being a bit harsh, but only to try to save you from worse.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi GoodDay, I hope you don't mind, but I'll make one last attempt to head you away from the (IMO) serious lack of judgment you are showing. Do you really think anyone with an active topic ban from GENSEX (a contentious topics area) has any chance at all of passing an RfA? Remember, admins are people who are supposed to oversee contentious topics and exercise good judgment in them, not people topic banned from them. Please, listen to all the wise guidance you are being given here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware that an RfA can be rough. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

~~There's a huge quantitative difference between "rough" and going down in flames. I'm stunned that you can't see that. Oh well, I tried. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)~~

Ah, just saw you withdrew it. Good move. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I want to add my voice to those above that are telling you that an RfA is unwise. The certain consequence is harm to both you and the community, with the potential benefit—one additional administrator—being extremely unlikely. You say above that you are "not expecting to get landslide of support", but a landslide is exactly what is needed in order to pass, as 65% support (the low end of the discretionary range) would be considered a landslide in almost any election. If you do not expect such a result, an RfA run is a waste of community energy and time. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Very well. Seeing as since the RfA was in the process of being opened, I've gotten increasing feedback to withdraw from seeking the tools. I'll withdraw. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. — SamX [talk · contribs] 20:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much. That was an excellent display of judgement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

A really good call. Thank you! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Hope I was able to respond to everyone's questions, to their satisfaction. Due to heavy traffic 'here' (resulting in a lot of edit-conflicts), I might have missed a few. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe the others above are right, but we have to get to a point where we look for people who have experience and scars; as it is we are likely voting for newer accounts that may be clean starts. Maybe we get to a point this is not a lifetime appointment - in that case I may never vote to oppose again. I wrote out my support rationale before you decided to cancel and I will leave it here for you.

Support based on their demeanor, advice, and supportive comments to me during hard times. GoodDay is competent in content creation, and has good AfD participation. They have been editing for 18n years and they have accumulated close to a half million (70 edits per day). The block log does not concern me as it shows the experience and the growth of Goodday. I think they will be a good administrator. Lightburst (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Lightburst. GoodDay (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

@SamX: Had I known about WP:ORCP earlier? I would've went there to get a rough idea of the odds. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, people's rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. I support the example you set as you traverse WikiWorld. ―Buster7 ☎

Thanks @Buster7: & the same to you. GoodDay (talk) 01:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

		Happy Holidays
		Hello, I wanted to be the first to wish you the very best during the holidays. It looks like Buster7 beat me! Lightburst (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Lightburst:, and the same to you. GoodDay (talk) 01:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Masterhatch (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you for all the hard work you do. Keep up the good work and Merry Christmas and a happy New Year. Masterhatch (talk) 03:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@Masterhatch: thanks & the same to you :) GoodDay (talk) 03:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

On use of flag images.

You think flag images shouldn’t be used except in limited circumstances. Yet, consider the hundreds of tennis tournament pages. All the players have flags beside their name. They are playing for themselves not as internationals. The same is true for football clubs throughout the world. From Toronto FC to Man United to Inter Milan to Santos. The players and staff listed have flags. How about all the players listed on the NHL draft entry pages and the club pages? And all the club teams in Europe. Check out Davos HC. And it’s not just in English, mais en français, italiano, Deutsch, και ελληνικά. According to you all these pages are wrong and should be changed. YOU don’t understand the policy. Your changes were wrong. My changes added info to the pages while you wanted to destroy it because you didn’t like them. You made the change to protect your fragile ego. But you won’t agree with me. You have a lot of pages to change. Start with the NHL, then the CHL. Next year jump to Sverige and the SHL and head south to the NL and east to the KHL... Next decade you can tackle the thousands of football club pages. Actually write some code to automate it and start with FCs and piss off millions of users. Your use of a sock puppet account is telling. καληνυχτα αγορι RDWES DRSHR OETVE FLTTY RCTDD 104.157.243.232 (talk) 09:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello IP, please check out MOS:FLAG for the rules regarding flag use. Masterhatch (talk) 12:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

IP, I don't know what you're rambling on about for the most part. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello GoodDay: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz^(T) 20:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: & the same to you. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Why?

Why do you bother to join discussions when you have nothing useful to say? Dicklyon (talk) 05:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Are you trying to persuade me to change my position at the RFC-in-question? GoodDay (talk) 05:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

No, your position seems to be "don't give a flying rat's ass". Just wondering why you bother. Dicklyon (talk) 06:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Get National Football League Draft moved to National Football League draft, first. Then (excuse the pun) tackle the rest. PS - Your position seems to be "lower case as much as possible, everywhere on Wikipedia". GoodDay (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Some of my case fixes go the other way. It's about following MOS:CAPS guidelines, not about a preference for lowercase. In my own book, for example, I follow Cambridge University Press style, and use title-case chapter titles and headings. Dicklyon (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

As long as the aforementioned page (above) remains at its current title? I will not budge on my RFC stance. GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

FWIW - I'd recommend you shutdown the RFC, if more editors call for it directly or indirectly, to be shut down. GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Saw this discussion. The RfC in question can't, on its own, lowercase any name. It is at best a survey, and not that many people are taking part in the survey. Uppercase and lowercase name changes occur at WP:RM. In this case Dicklyon should aim for the top, the National Football League Draft and not lyon around with under-pages. The real story of the comma war was that they wouldn't go for Martin Luther King Jr. until getting, who knows, more than half a dozen wins first?, and then finally taking on the King comma. Shouldn't do that time-sink piecemeal thing again, just open an RM at National Football League Draft and let's find out which way the editors want it. You have a good case for lowercasing based on ngrams, but that's all. This is an American thing, and in America the fans know it as NFL Draft, uppercased as a proper name, and it would be a shame to lose that respect of it being a proper name. But that surely won't occur at an out-of-the-way tangential-page RfC. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Well @Dicklyon:, I don't doubt that someday you (or someone else) will succeed in adopting lower-casing, in every corner of this project. Heck, we use diacritics in bio page titles & content, yet we're suppose to be English-language Wikipedia. At this moment, we are already slowing moving away from english versions of monarchs' names. Long story short - Nothing surprises about this entire project. GoodDay (talk) 03:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

When Dicklyon and others finally got rid of the Civil Rights Movement as a proper name by mixing it into a package deal with other civil rights articles, that showed why uppercase matters. The 1954-1968 Civil Rights Movement is akin to World War I, World War II, etc. as a world-changing event, but because ngrams didn't say so it was squeezed into a package nom and has been demoted on Wikipedia. Things like that make me focus on uppercasing what should be uppercased, per being a proper name (and the CRM should be, if all was fair and all closers had common sense, an IAR exception countering those ngrams, so maybe another RM might be about due). Randy Kryn (talk) 05:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The way the Years RFC was handled. Left me kinda deflated of sorts, these days. GoodDay (talk) 05:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I haven't kept up with that discussion after my last posting there, so don't really know how the flow of discussion went besides what you've alerted me to. Guess I'll take a read of it sometime in the next couple days. Things occur on Wikipedia that go against nature, but each of us has our own inner-map of what those things are. I've seen some really stupid decisions, but not much to do about them given the rulebook. Many times things seem to get it right though (either at the time or eventually). Randy Kryn (talk) 05:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

On 2023 IIHF World Junior Championship and 2023 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships at RM/TR

Hi Liz, there is a pageswap request that awaits your input at Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests#Administrator_needed. 2023 IIHF World Junior Championship ↔ 2023 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships. Please advice as ice hockey isn't a sports I am familiar with. – robertsky (talk) 03:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@Robertsky:, was this message meant for Liz? GoodDay (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Lols. oh yes. but nevermind, looks like it has been worked on. – robertsky (talk) 05:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Yup, all is well :) GoodDay (talk) 05:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

ICYMI: RfC: Removal of image collages

I think you are going to be very pleased with the result. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@InvadingInvader: Indeed. To think at the beginning, I was considered disruptive for opposing those collage images. GoodDay (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion has certainly come a long way. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Be careful now, this RfC might become as worthless as the infamous "i or I" debate many years ago that got an xkcd comic on it... DementiaGaming (talk) 13:55, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Well @InvadingInvader:, looks like it's not going to be closed, yet. GoodDay (talk) 00:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn:, @DementiaGaming: & @Koopinator:, from the way I'm seeing it, there's a consensus to "delete" only the image collages. Can we stick with that, until the mess up is resolved? GoodDay (talk) 01:54, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@Voorts: Just letting ya know, I'm not annoyed with you. It's nothing personal. GoodDay (talk) 02:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't take it personally. I know not everyone is going to agree with my decisions, but I did what I thought was right. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 02:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to all, and hopefully the RfC will be open until after the New Year so everyone who may have an interest can have their attention drawn to it. That would include everyone at the World War WikiProjects and pages, and who knows how many others. My personal view is to keep the decades and major historical page collages (such as World War II) but delete the individual years if they are considered too much to handle for page editors either working the pages or who have different opinions about image/event choices. The decades though, and things like WWII, the collage summaries seem quite important long-term pathways to Wikipedia readers who get a quick summary of somebutnotall of the important events of a decade when approaching the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: If the RFC is ever closed (still waiting) again. It's likely going to end up as 'keep' the collage images, in the Year, Decade & Millennium pages. GoodDay (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Well that's nice to hear, thank you GoodDay. I've never really studied the collages, or know how they were chosen, but I'd imagine they have to be really well-designed creations. They would have to be artworks. Which ones would you say do a nice job at presenting an adequate summary of the iconic events? Randy Kryn (talk) 03:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I won't be taking part in what belongs or doesn't belong in the collages. Just gonna sit back & watch the disputes. GoodDay (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

DementiaGaming, the editor who nommed the collages for deletion, is actually a very good collage creator. Hopefully they will be involved in presenting designs. I don't remember being actively involved or even having read a collage dispute discussion, so come in with pretty fresh eyes on the things, and wondering how the seashell clockwise listing of the 1960s caption instead of left-to-right was thought out. Thanks. Hard to imagine doing collages for every year, so am glad that's not going to be kept around. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if DG would be interested in creating image collages, for the pages-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 04:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Don't know, I haven't read the background discussions or why DG (if I may use the initials) stopped doing them, but I hope they surprise and at least give advice. Just looked at the 1910s collage, very well done. If they're all like that then Wikipedia might be doing it right. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Though disappointed (but not shocked) by the weak keep decision. Thankfully, the image collages RFC concerning 'Year' (and apparently the 'Decade', 'Century', 'Millennium') pages, has ended. GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Deb (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Jan 2024

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Jan 2024(2)

{{subst:ANEW-notice}}--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to refrain from commenting there, as it's usually best to allow outsiders to give input. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The long & winding road

@GiantSnowman:, I've seen/acknowledged your EW 'reminder'. Anyways, I should point out, one of the reasons I opened the RfC concerning Levesque? Was to avoid another editors' getting reported for edit-warring. TBH, looking back to late November 2023. Had the individual 'allowed' the change from "Qebecois politician" to "Canadian politician" in the opening sentence? The content dispute would likely not have begun, at all. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Quite possibly, yes. Giant Snowman 22:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:TPG vio

In this edit, you altered the significance of my comments by collapsing sections, and then you created a new subsection that singlehandedly set aside the question I had asked in my section. That is a pretty clear WP:TPG vio and a behavioral issue - please don't do that again. Newimpartial (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I merely combined the two discussions, because they were about the same topic. GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I had already explained (here) why I regard the topics as different and that they should not be combined. I don't understand why you thought it was permissible to combine them anyway. Newimpartial (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I already explained. In my view, both discussions appeared to be about the same topic, so I combined them. GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Levesque

@Newimpartial: you don't have to respond here. But, I'm concerned that you're at borderline territory (if you haven't breached that line), concerning WP:BLUDGEON, at Levesque's talkpage. For your sake, if you're willing to walk away from the discussion, I'll do the same. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I get what you're saying; while I can't promise to "walk away" completely, I certainly intend to hold back until I am no longer the top contributor in recent discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

IMHO, you should 'walk away' from it & I'm not suggesting this, just because you're opposing me there. At this moment, I've been attempting to help another editor out, in another topic area of the project, where myself & the other editor are on opposite sides of a content dispute. I'm seeking to get the other editor's 'edit war' block either lifted or reduced. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I dont think comments like this one on your part will move the discussion forward. You hold the view that the consensus resulting from the RfC is different from the one that the closer found. I understand that, but your view on this isn't really relevant to editing the page, and repeating it isn't likely to convince other editors any more than my repeating, "but the sources!", one more time is likely to convince other editors

Also, off-topic for Lesvesque but in response to your comment: my view is that the UK nations and the Spanish nationalities reflect correct, source based implementation of ETHNICITY as currently written, and that a similar, source-based approach should be followed to settle similar questions elsewhere. ETHNICITY simply does not endorse a cookie-cutter, Westphalian approach to "nationality" as written, and I believe it is written correctly (but often interpreted incorrectly). Just so we understand each other.

Also, to be clear, I recognize and respect your intention to promote collaboration around the project. However, at times it is necessary to understand the underlying values and animating concerns of other editors before meaningful consensus can be reached; antinomies like participating/not participating or support/oppose/compromise do not always speed this process, IME. Newimpartial (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I find your overall (since November 2023) refusal to accept "Canadian politician", via being the lone 'reverter', to be obstructing & repetitive posts at the talkpage, also unhelpful. But anyways - To clarify, you support using "Basque, Catalan" over "Spanish" & "English, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish/Irish" over "British"? GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

When sources support doing so, yes. Newimpartial (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

And, you want to push that beyond Spain & the United Kingdom, into all sovereign states? GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

When sources support doing so, yes. (And lest this be quoted later out of context, I am talking strictly about "national" terms here, and not about social identities that are not considered "nationalities" by HQRS.) I actually think this would be an improvement in standardizing our approach to recent versus earlier historical figures - right now, editors who want "passport citizenship" as the basis for the first sentence in all cases often ask questions about historical figures that RS are poorly equipped to answer, and that ought not to be major influences in writing an encyclopaedia.

Also, concerning your earlier comment, you seem to be interpreting me as the only editor favoring the inclusion of "Québécois" in the first sentence, through article edits or Talk contributions. Although I am the only recent "reverter", the more general characterization you are drawing from that is false. (And reverting to the version resulting from a recent RfC close is seldom regarded as bad behaviour, though I expect you disagree with me on that, too). Newimpartial (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

We disagree quite a bit, concerning Levesque & apparently WP:ETHNICITY, too. But then this project would be boring, if everybody agreed on everything. GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Irreverent description

No matter how many times I read those edit summaries, I think you're saying "Irreverent description". Thanks for doing them, in any event. Useful corrections. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: I don't know how long they'll stand. There's a staunch Canadian monarchist out there, who might object to my deletions. GoodDay (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

re: MLB Draft Move

Just an FYI - your current move proposal reads: It has been proposed in this section that Major League Baseball draft be renamed and moved to American Football League draft. I don't think this was your intention. - Skipple ☎ 16:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Good catch (no pun intended) & also fixed up my RM at the AFL page, too. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

It kind of blows my mind that you came to my talk page to convince me to convince someone else to not move any more pages relating to the ongoing RfC (making ANI noises about it while you were at it), then you turn right around and try to move two of them yourself while the same RfC continues, and despite your proposed moves being supportable by neither the pertinent guidelines nor the sourcing, and being contraindicated by at least two policies. I have to wonder what the point is and why you would do this. It comes off as WP:POINTy and self-contradictory, as well as pouring fuel on an already burning fire. PS: To quote your own statement above, this seems like the action of someone "thinking along the lines of whether or not 'they could'. But should've stop[ed] to consider whether or not 'they should'." — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I haven't moved any pages in relation to the RFC-in-question. I've opened RMs for two pages to be moved, as they were unilaterally moved to their 'current' titles, including one contrary to its previous RM result. GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

That comes off as wikilawyering to justify multiple WP:TALKFORKs that interfere with the ability of the community to come to a broader consensus at the RfC. It really doesn't matter whether the moves are done mid-RfC though a manual move, RM/TR, or regular RM, it's still trying to move the pages mid-RfC after you hinted in the direction of ANI action against another editor for doing that. As to the specific moves in question, they are long stable at their actually current titles, so this involves WP:TITLECHANGES, WP:EDITCON, and WP:NOTBURO policies; you have invoked a lengthy and editorially time-consuming process to change a page names on the basis of personal dissatisfaction with procedure many years ago but with no substantive justification for either move. And the one was not contrary to a previous RM; it was not an RM announced to the community, but a loose discussion among editors already working on the page, and was not about capitalization but whether it should be at the present title (styled one way or another) or at a completely different title like "First-Year Player Draft" (styled one way or another). Such a 2007 chit-chat has no relevance for whether a page in the modern Wikipedia can and should be moved to comply with multiple guidelines and with the sourcing. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Came here via the RM. SMcCandlish you need to drop it with the WP:ASPERSIONS. If you think you have a case, take to ANI or ARB, but the finger pointing needs to stop. Just leave your comment and move on to something unrelated to the intentions of other editors. Nemov (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Raising concerns about editorial decisions an actions is not aspersion-casting. We have user-talk pages for a reason, and the main one is resolving issues of this sort, in lieu of WP:DRAMAboards. Why on earth would you suggest I escalate something like this to one of those? PS: Even the ASPERSIONS page you cite recommend user-talk first and foremost. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC); annotated 20:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I didn't want Dicklyon getting into any trouble for his unilateral pages moves (since reverted), while the related-RFC was ongoing. I fully intend to respect/accept what ever the results are at the draft pages of MLB & AFL. Also, I never had (nor do I have) any intentions of reporting Dicklyon (or anybody else) to WP:ANI. Taking editors out of the uppercase/lowercase RFC, would be opposed by me. GoodDay (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

FWIW - I've no intentions of opening up RMs at NFL playoffs, American Football League playoffs (though I wish it was shortened to 'AFL playoffs'), Major League Baseball postseason & Stanley Cup playoffs. In those instances, 'playoffs' should be lower-cased. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

"While the related RfC is ongoing" is the point here. Would it have killed you to wait until the RfC was closed? There's a non-zero chance that the RMs you opened could result in moves that end up having to be re-RMed again not long after. As for "American Football League" pages, I think they are at the not-so-WP:CONCISE titles because of the still-extant and big-deal Australian Football League, so are a form of WP:NATURALDIS instead of doing "AFL playoffs (American football)" or whatever (which may make sense, since the "A" already stands for "American"). I've not even wanted to think about "postseason", "playoffs", "finals", and so on. Some dispute about one or aother of those already erupted at some highly particular article, though I went through literally every non-primary source coughed up by Google News and demonstrated that indy RS do not capitalize the term in that case, despite repeated claims by proponents of the capitalization that they do. Par for the course. I think what happens is people assume that what they see in primary and other prompotional sources (league material, teams' websites, ticket sellers, fansites of the league / a team) is what the independent sports press and other actually reliable and secondary sources are doing too, without actually bothering to check (i.e., I don't think they're lying about the sourcing, since it's easy to verify). But making wrong sourcing claims like this still has a disruptive effect of spawning such pointless and tedious disputes and dragging them out and wasting other editors' time. Why do a few editors in a few topics just insist on not following the same naming guidelines and title policy as everyone else in the encyclopedia? What is the block here? A lot of these aren't even specialized-style fallacies, because the things are lowercase in most of the topic-specific secondary material; it's a "primary-style fallacy" or "official-style fallacy" or "marketing-style fallacy". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Those who know me best, know that I'm pro-consistency. Whatever the RFC (btw I've decided 'not' to go to Wikipedia:Closure requests tomorrow) result is? I'll abide by it. My only hope, is that the result will be applied consistently, whatever it is. GoodDay (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

That might not be possible with all that "playoffs" stuff; for some specific instances it seems to be treated as a proper name across most of the indy RS, but in most cases not, so a handful of them might be capitalized even if the rest are not (and there won't be any P&G and/or sourcing basis on which to lowercase those few, or uppercase all those that don't quality). In the end we can't force the sources to be consistent, and the community cares more about doing what the sources do than being consistent to a very fine level. The peeve-petter in me would prefer more consitency, too, but I've learned a long time ago to not hold my breath for it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, that consistency is impossible among these sports page titles, let alone page titles in any given group. A year (or more) ago, I was unable to get Year AFL season adopted to intros & infobox headings of the American Football League's 1960 to 1969 season pages. To this day we've got "American Football League season" in the AFL season pages & infobox headings & "NFL season" in the NFL season pages & infobox headings. On a 'country/sorta country' level? I couldn't get Confederate States of America moved to Confederate States, to match with the United States page name. GoodDay (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

At a guess, it would be again because of the Australian league in the first case, though a template only used within the American F. L. article would not seem to raise any ambiguity issues, so that one's weird. On the second, my guess would be that just "the Confederate States" is not frequently found in RS, while "the United States of America" has undergone a shortening process to "the United States" generally (despite that bringing it into some minor ambiguity issues with a few other countries that in long form are "the United States of [Something]" but usually not called that). The CSA's name didn't undergo the now-conventionalized shortening process because the CSA ended before that process took firm hold. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

It's still so annoying, particularly the intros & infobox headings for the AFL season pages. I mean the name of those pages already tells one which league it is, so where's the harm in using (example) 1969 AFL season in the intro & infobox heading at the 1969 American Football League season page. GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Generally, abbreviations are expanded on first use in a page per MOS:ACRO1STUSE: ...an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses... —Bagumba (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Bagumba: What of the infobox headings? GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Typically, they just repeat the page title. —Bagumba (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Kind of a stinker, when you see a long worded page title repeated on the infobox heading. Where an abbreviation would be so much neater & in-line with the NFL season pages. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Tend to agree. There's no reason to repeat the full page name in the infobox at 1969 American Football League season. ACRO1STUSE is about running text, not infoboxes, which are often full of abbreviations. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't object. I was orginally just saying that ibx headers just seemed to always parrot the page title, but there's probably no formal guideline. —Bagumba (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Seems that MOS:INFOBOX says:

It should be named the common name of the article's subject but may contain the full (official) name; this does not need to match the article's Wikipedia title, but falling back to use that (with {{PAGENAMEBASE}}) is usually fine

—Bagumba (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm seeking permission at WP:NFL, for abbreviating to AFL & NFL in the season infobox headings. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Oddly, 2023 NFL season has "2023 National Football League season" as its infobox header. —Bagumba (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

When were those changed? or were they always that way. Don't tell me, my memory is going. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I never paid attention. —Bagumba (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I think I'll back away from the whole 'uppercase vs lowercase' general content dispute, going forward. PS - I'll respect & abide by the results of the RMs at MLB draft, AFL draft & NBA Conference Finals, no matter what they are. GoodDay (talk) 04:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

WikiGnome?

It says above that you're a WikiGnome. But I don't get it. Have you read where that user badge links to? It says "A WikiGnome is a wiki user who makes useful incremental edits without clamoring for attention. WikiGnomes work behind the scenes of a wiki, tying up little loose ends and making things run more smoothly. Examples of WikiGnome-like behavior include improving punctuation, fixing typos, correcting poor grammar, ...". You're kind of the opposite, often clamoring for attention when you have nothing to contribute, admittedly not understanding English grammar, showing no respect for style guidelines, and just injecting a lot of noise and pushback into places where others are trying to get these jobs done. Consider changing that. Dicklyon (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

That's pretty nasty, Dicklyon. What's the purpose of your post? What good do you expect it to do to express such contempt for a longtime user? Who or what does it harm if GoodDay chooses to call himself a WikiGnome? Bishonen | tålk 20:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC).

Calling himself that is not where the harm is, but my comment was to point the way to some positive changes I'd like him to consider making. He has just been such a thorn in my side for years now. I'm sure he understands me on this. Dicklyon (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't consider you a thorn in my side. But, I'll think 'twice' next time, about arguing on your behalf, should you get blocked again. In polite terms, you've annoyed me, just now. GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Whoah, one minute here. I don't oppose you on every thing concerning the area of uppercase/lower case & I just (mere days ago) helped get you unblocked, in relation to that area. Maybe you'll succeed in your quest to get lowercasing adopted everywhere's you believe it should be adopted. But barking at editors, (who sometimes agree with you) when they disagree with you & just recently got you out of a jam, is a non-starter. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say always. And I'm not at all sure you unblocked me. You made several unnecessary RMs contrary to what makes sense, and you ran ahead on changes where patience was needed, and you interjected unsupported opinions all over the place. Dicklyon (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I will not get into a (figurative) shouting match with you. Recommend you hit the showers & cool off. GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Dicklyon won't show up for a shouting match in the next few days; they have been blocked. Bishonen | tålk 23:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC).

Understood. GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

What an absolutely shameless and unnecessary attack. Shame on you Dicklyon. - Skipple ☎ 21:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. A two day block seems light. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, GoodDay. I was having a Bad Day and took it out on you. Dicklyon (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Accepted. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

NCROY

Can you elaborate on this?:

An RFC at WP:NCROY was held (late 2023) with the result basically being that it's desirable to drop "of country" from monarch bio pages, where possible. So far, it's mostly being implement via RMs on monarch bio pages & some via Bold moves. Overall the end result has left monarch page bios in more inconsistencies now, then ever before. So.. if part of the lower-case push, is to bring consistency to sports page titles? It's quite likely, the result will be more inconsistencies. ... In the example I've given. There's zero chance of consistency being restored, particularly as inconsistency is preferred.

What's the nature of the issue from your perspective? I'm not really sure what concern you're raising.

I've gone over the original RfC, and the followup RfC that was aborted for some reason despite significant input. It looks to me like the original RfC's conclusion was reached on the basis of WP:CRITERIA policy, and maybe really couldn't have come out any other way. It basically weights the criteria in priority order (they really are in such an order, though a lot of editors don't realize this; consistency is the lowest-ranked criterion). It's probably inevitable that nobility that do not need to be disambiguated by country or other additional detail will not be, since that's how we do all disambiguation. The consistency principle has never meant to "pre-disambiguate" things that aren't ambiguous just to make their total titles consistent with things that require disambiguation. (This has come up before, in multiple other topics, with the same concision result, thought there may be some additional holdouts due, as in this case, to wikiprojects back in the 2000s making up their own "rules" and no one caring to normalize the material toward policy yet, probably because of hostility from people devoted to the topic and habituated to their walled garden). WP:ROYALTY and WP:PEERAGE have other "make up our own rules against site-wide norms" issues that are going to eventually come to a head (especially abuse of infobox parameters to defy MOS:HONORIFICS) and there will probably be wailing and hair-pulling and tooth-gnashing and fist-shaking. There always is any time some wikiproject has been doing something weird and they get challeged on it.

An issue that does seem likely to arise after the concision RfC above is that a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC will be, in this subject, extremely likely to be biased toward the British and secondarily the other Western European nobility. E.g., Foobar II of Elbonia might be decided to be the primary topic for "Foobar II", but Foobar II of Serendip is almost always going to be who readers from Serendip and thereabouts are going to be thinking of, not the guy from Elbonia who is considered the primary topic and who is undisambiguated just because more stuff in English was written about Elbonia. Normally we wouldn't care much, but what if the one from Serendip was a figure of great regional importance for half a century, but the one from Elbonia was someone who ruled for less than a year and had no real historical impact, just shows up again and again briefly in English-language RS materials? There's a systemic bias across our articles generally toward American, British, and other Western topics of interest, in that order, but it will be more acute in this topic than in most (other than minus American for its lack of a nobile class, though American fascination with that of the UK will ratchet up the "primaryness" of the British ones anyway).

At any rate, I don't see how this is supposed to relate to the NFL [D|d]raft matter (other than it being another conflict of a subset of topic-devoted editors with the encyclopedia-wide P&G, as usual). "Bring[ing] consistency to sports page titles" doesn't appear to be one of the central concerns in the ongoing RfC, certainly not from the "follow the P&G and use lowercase" quarter. All the related NFL articles will ultimately be at the same name format and all the the running text mentions will eventually migrate in that direction, though there's no big hurry. We already know for a proven fact that "NFL draft" is not consistently treated as a capitalized proper name by independent reliable sources, even American-football-specific ones, so there's really only one way this can ultimately resolve, despite all the venting. If (extremely unlikely) it turned out that "AFL Draft" [1] or "NHL Draft" [2] really was consistently capitalized as a proper name in the vast majority of indy sources (probably due to an actually applicable trademark), that would be fine, since they'd be a different class of thing that happened to have a similar name and a word in common and conceptually related (e.g. terrier is a common-noun general type of dog consisting of several breeds; Skye Terrier is a specific standardized breed). Any long disambiguation page has various entries that are capitalized things and various that are not, and this not any kind of problem, even if two or more of them are things in the same catetory. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The lesson to learn from NCROY, is that many editors were thinking along the lines of whether or not 'they could'. But should've stop to consider whether or not 'they should'. Consistency ought to be primary for any group of articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Consistency is but one of five co-equal WP:CRITERIA to consider in naming articles. Dicklyon (talk) 02:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: & @Dicklyon: There must be more monarchists on Wikipedia, then I thought. The RMs opened at 'monarch name' pages, are getting way more attention then RMs opened at 'sports name' pages. GoodDay (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

GoodDay, I have no idea if your conjecture is right. Let me give you a grammar tip: learn the difference between "then" and "than", and omit most of your commas, and you'll be easier to understand. E.g. "There must be more monarchists on Wikipedia than I thought. The RMs opened at 'monarch name' pages are getting way more attention than RMs opened at 'sports name' pages." Cheers. Dicklyon (talk) 02:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Grammar was never a strength of mine. GoodDay (talk) 02:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I should volunteer to tutor you on proper nouns and capital letters. Dicklyon (talk) 02:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

"Capital letters"? Now cut that out ;) GoodDay (talk) 02:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I would think it's because they're historical biographical subjects, which is always an area with a lot of watchlisters. Not sure it's really royalists; they seem more obsessed with the modern-day British royalty and peerage, and to a much lesser extent other European present-day nobility. Anyway, I saw moves open for Victor Amadeus III of Sardinia and Amadeo I of Spain, but expected more, especially after recent-ish changes to WP:NCROY via RfC on this question. I guess most of the compliance moves are being done manually and without drama, but I've not looked into it. When it comes to WP:ROYALTY and WP:PEERAGE, I've been much more concerned with their abuses of infobox parameters to evade MOS:HONORIFIC and related guidelines. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the NCROY update has sprouted (and is still sprouting) multiple RMs, for sure. As for the royalty infoboxes? I couldn't agree more. GoodDay (talk) 03:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I've walked away from the RMs concerning names of monarch pages. At this point, there's simply far too many pages 'now' inconsistent, including monarchs of the same country. We've now got "Frederick" & "Frederik", "William" & "Wilhelm", "Philip" & "Felipe", etc. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Canadian royal flappy things

Hello! I hope you don't mind me pushing you on your position over at the royal standards article. Hopefully it will help the closer, but who knows? Anyway, I thought it would be good to speak in a situation where we're not at loggerheads! A.D.Hope (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Concerning RMs & RFCs, I've always accepted the closer's decision. But you must be careful not to bludgeon the RM-in-question. PS - I thank you for making me aware that New Zealand, Australia, Papua New Guinea, Saint Lucia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Solomon Islands, Antigua and Barbuda, Jamaica, Granada, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Tuvalu, Bahamas & Belize, haven't issued King Charles III his own standard/flag. Perhaps a tiny step towards becoming republics? GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there's a line between discussion and bludgeoning and I do try and stay on the right side of it – sometimes enthusiasm does get the better of me, but I've no desire to derail the process.

It'll be interesting to see what those Commonwealth realms do when Charles visits. If they knock up a flag they'll probably stick around, if not they might have an eye on the door. I could see Canada's decision to use a simple banner of arms rather than a personal flag being influential. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Sadly, Canada's got it set up that it's nearly impossible to abolish the monarchy. Even the United Kingdom can abolish theirs, easier. GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

It would be a little amusing if Canada ended up being the last Commonwealth realm standing. In practical terms I reckon the UK will probably find it more difficult, though, even if it seems easier on the surface. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

To your point it depends on the Realm in terms of what they do. The first four in the Caribbean to obtain independence: Jamaica + Trinidad and Tobago in 1962. Guyana + Barbados in 1966. Then the procedures changed. After the British West Indies Federation collapsed, and those four left, the U.K. placed the rest of the small islands into an "Associated Statehood" (It was called the UK-West Indies Associated States) status to comply with the U.N.'s rules on United Nations list of non-self-governing territories. There was less emphasis on new U.K. Commonwealth symbols for these states. (i.e. flag for the PM, then a flag for GG, then a flag for the Office of the Monarchy (too).) The rules strengthened also against being able to travel from these places to live in the U.K. Unless you were granted Right of Abode in the U.K. proper after Barbados left.

So **I believe** at that point usually when the U.K. visits them- they just use English flags as if England was a foreign diplomat visiting them. You can confirm if you wish on Youtube as there's been a number of Royal visits in recent years to various Caribbean islands, regarding Commonwealth Heads of Gov. meeting in Trinidad in 2010, London Olympics ramp up exercises, and Queen's various celebrations and you can see the flags unfurled at the ports when the Queen's representative (Prince William/Harry, Charles + Consort, or Prince Edward turn up to inspect the military.) CaribDigita (talk) CaribDigita (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

English flags & England?? GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

This one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_the_United_Kingdom#Arms

As-in it is *not* the Royal Standard for the separate Kingdom of Scotland.

Ofcourse I am almost certain what will likely happen is ahead of the next visit- of the new King the UK's personal designated person from the UK government would bring down whatever is pre-decided by the PM/Cabinet in the respective island + the British High Commission office for the Eastern Caribbean (still in Barbados). I personally don't believe the small islands will want to pay the Royal College of Arms to commission a separate Royal Standard for each of their islands when they already view the Monarchy as a single *foreign* entity at that. I cannot envision them localising it like the first four did and pay to have new Royal Standard(s) created too. The new politicians today aren't as up to date on protocol and all of that old time stuff. CaribDigita (talk) 01:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

A United Kingdom minus Scotland standard? GoodDay (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Those royal standards are (I believe) usually done in collaboration with the Royal College of Arms in the UK. Barbados' Royal Standard I believe went through there.

Caribbean islands always forget to do trivial stuff like that. It's not any pre-text for Republic etc. etc. It's like how in Barbados we don't even know what our new Constitution looks like yet since becoming a republic in 2021. We just keep being told "it's in the works". But as you know in law: If you haven't *seen it*, it doesn't exist. It must be in writing not just told to you. But Thank God Barbados is peaceful if not some person or persons might have been going crazy and saying there's no Constitution that says x-or-y was illegal then we end up in Constitutional crisis. Barbados took the most dangerous time to become a Republic as you can see, Venezuela is back to claiming Guyana in recent times. Guatemala still claims Belize. Argentina wants UK to return to negotiations over Falkland Islands. If Russia invades, we don't even have a guarantee anymore from NATO in the Caribbean since Barbados become republic. CaribDigita (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC)