User talk:Maddy from Celeste

Rococo Revival RM

Hi, your close found no consensus for the proposed move. While the votes in this case were evenly split, a no consensus finding would indicate you found that the arguments made to support or oppose were equally strong. Could you please expand on how you assessed the strength of the arguments. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:CONSISTENT and WP:TITLEFORMAT are both valid considerations when choosing an article title. In fact, TITLEFORMAT says it is "used in deciding on questions not covered by the five principles"; consistency is one of those five principles. In such a case, I as a closer cannot myself decide which consideration is more important, and I don't think the numbers were decisive enough either. In addition, editors disagreed on whether the most commonly recognizable form is capitalized or not. Again, I do not think either side won enough support over the other to declare a consensus. My suggestion here is, as stated in the close, to examine the other revival style articles and their sources. If many of them really should be lowercased, consistency would not weigh much in the evaluation anymore. Conversely, if most of those are correctly capitalized, maybe it's fine that Rococo Revival also is. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Maddy. You would consider that WP:CONSISTENT and WP:TITLEFORMAT are both valid considerations when determining the capitalisation to be applied to a particular article title (as opposed to the wording). Per WP:RMCIDC: Remember, the participants in any given discussion represent only a tiny fraction of the Wikipedia community whose consensus is reflected in the policy, guidelines and conventions to which all titles are to adhere. Thus, closers are expected to be familiar with such matters, so that they have the ability to make these assessments. Per WP:NHC: The closer is not expected to decide the issue, just to judge the result of the debate, and is expected to know policy sufficiently to know what arguments are to be excluded as irrelevant. It also refers to reasonable arguments.

The meaning of WP:CONSISTENT is not contained in the word consistent (as argued) but in the explanation therein (both directly and through supporting documentation invoked therein) and the fuller context of WP:AT. WP:CRITERIA states: The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above. (See § Consistency, below.). Topic-specific naming conventions are listed in the sidebar at WP:AT. The section Consistency further directs to WP:TITLECON, which explains that it refers to documented topic-specific conventions on article titles. This fits back into WP:CRITERIA. WP:NCCAPS is a naming convention linked from WP:LOWERCASE (at WP:AT). In turn, it invokes MOS:CAPS. While the Nom (and others) did not specifically refer to the link from WP:AT to MOS:CAPS, a person reasonably familiar with the prevailing P&G should be aware of this.

You correctly observe WP:TITLEFORMAT states: The following points are used in deciding on questions not covered by the five principles [emphasis added]. This is telling us that the points therein (including WP:LOWERCASE) are requirements over and above the five criteria and have precedence over the criteria. Considering the P&G in full, there is no reasonable inconsistency, contradiction or exception that would cause WP:CONSISTENT to have any precedence over WP:LOWERCASE on a matter of capitalisation.This RM also attempted to use the WP:CONSISTENT argument and might be enlightening. Where we have a multi RM for capitalisation, the evidence is considered on the individual merits (see here). As seen in the link discussion, some articles in a multi RM may be moved while others are not - depending on the individual merits. It is the role of the closer to determine whether an argument is reasonable and discard those which are not - such as a fallacious pettifogging misrepresentation of the spirit and intent of the prevailing P&G. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I cannot agree with you that your reading of the policy on consistency is the only correct one. As you quote, the consistency criterion per se is: The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. It is further explained that many such patterns may be found in topic-specific naming conventions. This explicitly does not imply that consistency is only an argument where there exists a topic-specific naming convention. § Consistency does indeed directs to WP:TITLECON, but you are omitting crucial context: it directs to TITLECON [f]or examples of Wikipedia practices regarding consistency in article titles. Neither WP:NCCAPS nor MOS:CAPS offers specific guidance on artistic periods or movements, and SMcCandlish correctly notes that these often are capitalized.

As for the scope of TITLEFORMAT, I am quite certain you've got it backwards. [O]n questions not covered by the five principles situates that section in a subsidiary position to the main criteria: the five criteria are applied first, and then, if any questions remain unanswered by a throrough analysis of them, TITLEFORMAT is applied. In this case, according to those who favoured capitalization, the capitalization question is answered by consistency, and therefore LOWERCASE never appears in the evaluation. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:TITLEFORMAT is telling us about things we should or should not do even though a proposed title determined by applying WP:CRITERIA might initially suggest otherwise - ie we don't use the or the plural form (etc) except in specific circumstances as detailed therein. TITLEFORMAT is saying, make sure your proposed title complies with this guidance. TITLEFORMAT is taking precedence over CRITERIA. That is the spirit and intent of the policy at WP:AT. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Maybe this is non-native me insisting on a mistaken reading of WP:TITLEFORMAT, but I cannot bring myself to read the first clause there remotely the same way you do. Take it to WP:MRV if you must. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 11:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Editors should not have to invoke an adverarial process that sucks up a lot of time of a lot of editors (and the core point of which is documenting, and creating a record of, closer error), when a closer on uncertain ground can simply undo their questionable close and let someone else with a clearer understanding of policy deal with it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:CONSISTENT (and all the rest of WP:AT) has nothing to do with style matters, which is controlled by WP:MOS and pages thereof (plus naming conventions guidelines derived from them, like WP:NCCAPS). This includes capitalization, which at Wikipedia is only used when, for a specific subject, when that capitalizations is found consistently in a substantial majority (like 90%+) of independent reliable soruces. AT is the policy that helps us choose from between entirely different (regardless of any style question) names for the same subject, like David Johansen and Buster Poindexter (and also how to disambiguate when necessary, with a preference for natural English over parenthetical or other punctuated approaches).

AT has nothing at all to do with how to capitalize or otherwise stylize the article title after it has been selected; otherwise, it would be literally impossible for the naming conventions guidelines to even exist, or for MOS to ever have any effect on RM discussions, but of course NC and MOS are key or entirely determining factors in RM decisions every single day and always have been for 20+ years. WP:AT and the WP:NC* guidelines explicitly defer to MOS on style matters dozens of times. As in virtually all capitalization RMs, there is only one question before us, period: is this term almost uniformly capitalized in independent RS? If not, then use lower case, always.

The idea that vaguely similar things must be all be capitalized on WP if any of them are capitalized is utterly false. We routinely do exactly the opposite, and follow source usage. This is why, for example, various armed conflicts have capitalized article titles, because certain particular designations like Guatemalan Civil War, Palace Rebellion, Makassar Uprising, Bay of Pigs Invasion, and Peasant Revolt (Albania), have become conventionalized as proper names and are virtually always capitalized; but a great many do not, because various descriptive appellations like Caprivi conflict, Yeosu–Suncheon rebellion, Arube uprising, Russian invasion of Manchuria, and Brunei revolt are not treated this way in the source material.

On capitalization, Wikipedia does not force an artificial "consistency" to suit editors' whims in defiance of reliable sourcing. This is not at all the sort of consistency that is meant by WP:CONSISTENT, and this is clear from actually just bothering to read WP:AT instead of making assumptions about what it might mean from strings used in sometimes unhelpful shortcuts.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I have read the policy, thank you very much. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

October thanks

story · music · places

Thank you for improving articles on October! - My story today is a cantata 300 years old, based on a hymn 200 years old when the cantata was composed, based on a psalm some thousand years old, - so said the 2015 DYK hook. I had forgotten the discussion on the talk. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Yasuke close

		The Closer's Barnstar
		I remembered the Yasuke RFC was a mess and went to see who closed it out of morbid curiosity. Honestly, congrats for calling it the mess it was and for still being able to summarize some threads despite the absolute trainwreck of an RFC Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Seeing the heading, I was scared this would be another involved user's close challenge (see up-page). Thank you so much! <3 -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 06:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

On you closing stuff, you might find [1] interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh no! Anyways... I do like the pivot they do from neutrally describing the discussion to suddenly only quote a bunch of pro-"hamas-controlled" editors and commentators. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, you noticed that too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Closer's Barnstar
		Thank you so much for slaying that beast of a discussion! The wiki is better off for it. Sincerely, Dilettante 15:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Honestly I don't feel this closure was extraordinarily difficult, but touching policy like this is of course always a bit scary :) -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I also feel it was pretty straightforward, as I mentioned at ANRFC. However, the close is the culmination of an 8 month-long process, which certainly warrants praise. Sincerely, Dilettante 15:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

As someone who, personally, does not like the way it turned out, I nonetheless think you made a good close, and I thank you for it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Good work as always, Maddy! Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 20:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

+1, really well written closing statement, of a complex discussion, it must have taken a while to read everything, thank you for putting in the time. Levivich (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Admin recall

Hi Maddy. Thanks for tackling that messy RfC. I'm a bit confused about one point of your close though: your conclusion that the page should immediately be marked as a policy (which I see you've already done). The RfC didn't ask if it should be a policy, it just asked if it there was consensus. We don't usually describe processes as policies or guidelines. For example, WP:RFA is not a policy. I'm worried that the policy tag will make it harder to resolve ambiguities through normal editing as you also recommended. Could you perhaps reconsider this part? – Joe (talk) 20:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I'm currently constrained to editing on my phone, making reading lots of PAG difficult, and will be going to sleep soon, so I'd encourage you to take this up at the recall talk page. My immediate thoughts on this are that this specific procedure went through very extensive dicussion, and the specifics of how it happens were considered very important, thus not "just procedure". As for your example, WP:RFA itself is not a policy page, but the basics of the process are defined at WP:ADMIN. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

To elaborate, I think the distinction lies not in policy or procedure, but policy basis versus implementation details. At one extreme, consider page moves. We have a policy basis that editors may move pages if there is a consensus and it fits with the title policy etc., and WP:RM is just a "btw this is how we organize this". On the other hand, with admin recall I think to the community, how it is done is just as important as whether it is done. "The community can desysop if there is a consensus" would be a terrible policy and would not reflect consensus. See also WP:CUOS which is a policy and describes the procedures for granting and removal of advanced permissions. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

None of that changes the fact that the question posed in the RfC did not use the word "policy". Usually when we upgrade to a policy it is via an RfC that explicitly asks "should we make this a policy"? Reading your closing statement again, it seems you mistook this discussion as a change to an existing policy (On the English Wikipedia, there are no formal requirements for policy changes [...] this RfC is a valid way of figuring out where we want to set the threshold for this particular policy amendment and therefore perhaps missed the fact that we do have a set process for proposing new policies, which this did not follow. – Joe (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll respond briefly, but given the significant developments these last two days, I do not feel comfortable making any unilateral changes at this point, and would request you to take this up for a community discussion at an appropriate venue.

• You're right about WP:PROPOSAL existing. I did read that in the process of closing, but for some reason (I probably forgot) did not comment on that in the closure.
• Still, that section also does not lay down mandatory formalities for policy adoption, in the way that for example Wiktionary has them. It describes how policies are commonly adopted, but that does not mean that another process with a similar level of consensus cannot also result in policy; hence the RfC. Thus, I don't think that really changes the essential parts of my closure. Also, I see policy as a unitary body divided into pages for practical reasons, not a collection of individual, cleanly separable "policies", so policy change and policy adoption are two sides of the same coin.
• The RfC question was: Is there consensus to have administrator recall based on the consensus reached during Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review? Having administrator recall implies a new policy for that. Again, policy is not a sacred word that must specifically be voted in. It is often said that policy follows practice, so by establishing consensus for a new practice, policy is created regardless of the words used.

-- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

You are aware that the word policy has a specific definition on this project, yes? Having consensus for something does not make it a policy. As I already mentioned, the majority of processes (WP:RFA, WP:AFD, etc.) are not policies even they obviously have a vastly higher level of consensus behind them than the new admin recall procedure. – Joe (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I am. RFA and AFD are the pages where the things happen. What things happen is defined at WP:ADMIN and WP:DP, policies. Please refer to my previous responses on this topic. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

AfD and DELPOL are too old but WP:ADMIN was explicitly adopted as a policy following the process set by policy.[2][3] Unlike WP:RECALL. So again, on what basis does this meet the threshold for being considered a policy? – Joe (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Ignoring what another person is saying is great when you want to make them look stupid to an audience. Not so great when trying to convince them. You're right – I could amend my closure. I will not, however, at this time, because (a) I don't want to, and (b) I think a broader discussion is needed. Passing the buck to AN is exactly what is to be done in this situation. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Noting that Joe Roe removed the policy tag from the page, and I have readded it. If I have missed a discussion elsewhere about it (e.g. a close challenge at AN or Maddy amending the close somewhere), please point me to it. Otherwise I think the process is to talk it out here, and if that's unsatisfactory, to get community review at WP:AN. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Is_WP:RECALL_a_policy? – Joe (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Janicke Askevold for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Janicke Askevold is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janicke Askevold until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

LibStar (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red November 2024

Women in Red | November 2024, Vol 10, Issue 11, Nos 293, 294, 321, 322, 323 Online events: New: Asian women | Geofocus: Islands Q-Z | Women in engineering Continuing: #1day1woman | Education (year-long initiative) Announcements from other communities Annual Wikipedia Asian Month (WAM) is an online campaign designed to boost Asian content on Wikipedia each November. Unreferenced articles backlog drive. These Wikiproject clean-up lists offer a start to November's backlog drive, e.g. Women's History and Women writers Tip of the month: Looking for an image? Sometimes you can find openly licensed images at search.creativecommons.org/ Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 20:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Question from Ven3u69 (23:45, 29 October 2024)

Do you know if all details must be filled in within regards to book citing? Like, If I have all of the useful information, such as IBN, etc, do I need to do the other "less" important things? If I don't have it. --Ven3u69 (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. You do not need to fill in absolutely every piece of information. You do need enough to uniquely identify the work. I'd suggest:

• Title
• Authors or editors
• Year
• Publisher
• Edition, if not first
• ISBN or some other kind of numerical identifier if available
• Page numbers for each reference

-- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 09:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2024).

Administrator changes

• Crisco 1492

• Babajobu
• Daniel
• Elf
• Jayron32
• Thue
• Wugapodes

CheckUser changes

Maxim

Oversighter changes

Maxim

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion, the discussion-only period proposal that went for a trial to refine the requests for adminship (RfA) process has been discontinued.
• Following a request for comment, Administrator recall is adopted as a policy.

Technical news

• Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068

Arbitration

• RoySmith, Barkeep49 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2024 Arbitration Committee Elections. ThadeusOfNazereth and Dr vulpes are reserve commissioners.
• Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate from 3 November 2024 until 12 November 2024 to stand in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections.
• The Arbitration Committee is seeking volunteers for roles such as clerks, access to the COI queue, checkuser, and oversight.

Miscellaneous

• An unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in November 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Question from Gj2020 (18:03, 8 November 2024)

Hello, I hope you are doing well. The reason I am here is because I came across an article about the Turuun River, but I can't find any information on this subject. I'm wondering if this is even a real river or not. What should I do? --Gj2020 (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I found this river on OpenStreetMap. If you think the river is not notable, (WP:NGEO) you may propose deleting or merging it, though I would not do so without knowing enough to assess whether there are Mongolian sources on this topic. Apart from that, the article is already tagged for no sources so not much to do here. If you do find some information, you could of course help out by adding it. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 22:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Understood. I will see if I can find something, but if I don’t, then I will just leave it be.

and yes. thanks againn Gj2020 (talk) 19:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Question from Carrielmeng on Western States Endurance Run (18:55, 12 November 2024)

Hello, I work for Western States Endurance Run. Our wiki page has a very old logo on it. How can we get that updated? --Carrielmeng (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @Carrielmeng! I think Wikipedia:Files for upload is what you're looking for. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Question from Yuat.K.Alok (01:50, 17 November 2024)

Request for Revision of Wikipedia Article on My Early Life

Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to bring to your attention some inaccuracies in the Wikipedia article about me, specifically regarding the section on my early life. I believe that certain details in this section are incorrect or presented in a misleading manner, and I would like to request that the information be revised to more accurately reflect the facts.

I would be happy to provide the correct information or any additional context you may need to ensure that the article is both accurate and properly reflects my background. I kindly ask that you reconsider the wording of the early life section and make the necessary revisions.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I look forward to your response and to seeing the changes made.

Best regards,
 Yuat Alok --Yuat.K.Alok (talk) 01:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@Yuat.K.Alok Please go to Talk:Yuat Alok, add a new section, enter {{Edit COI}} at the top and then describe the specific changes you want made, with reliable sources to back them up. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

It’s locked. You can not edit 2404:4408:6A33:4400:FD9A:5C88:1818:F96E (talk) 03:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

November thanks

story · music · places

Thank you for improving articles in November! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)