Airline destination deletion nominations edit

Thank you for nominating all those articles for deletion. I have a question: do you plan on nominating other similar articles from Category:Lists of airline destinations for deletion soon? Thanks. Nythar (💬-🍀) 01:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. Others may nominate them (and if they do and I happen to see the AFD, I’ll probably !vote delete if they are like the ones I’ve already nominated), but I do not plan on going on a slash-and-burn campaign right now. I think we should give the article-creators/maintainers a chance to come up with something other than deletion, be it merging, improving (though I don’t think there’s any way of being kept as-is, I don’t know everything), moving to Wikivoyage/a fandom wiki, or something else. There is, after all, no deadline.
I also have to say that preparing these AFDs is a lot of work. Each of the lists I’ve added to the Aviation DELSORT easily took ~30 mins or so of work on average. It would have been easy to simply say “fails WP:NOT, look at the 2018 RFC” but I don’t think that is sufficient. Part of the argument I’m making is that these also aren’t notable under WP:CORP and can’t be verified except from the airline website, and that means checking all the sourcing. This is to avoid a discussion that simply turns in to “it’s useful” versus “it’s not useful”, which are just two sides of the same fallacy (usefulness per se is not very decisive of whether something is kept or not). The point is not just that giving all the destinations for an airline on some random day in 2012 is not useful, but that there’s nothing notable about a full list of the destinations of an airline on that day.
Furthermore, a review of the other bundled AFDs/discussions in 2006, 2007, 2015, and 2018 shows them to have been very high-drama and I don’t think that’s good for any one. AFDs are necessarily time-limited affairs pointing towards two major outcomes (keep or delete) and it’s possible a third option could be arrived at that would make everyone happier. Proceeding with individual nominations/smaller batches is likely just to jam up AFD with too many nominations (same problem as with mass-created stubs) and that wouldn’t be fair on the people closing the AFDs.
This is not to say that nothing needs doing or I nominated the ones I’ve already nominated just to make a point: there is a community consensus against these articles, they do fail multiple policies and guidelines (not just WP:NOT), and it is not sufficient to hide behind assertions of usefulness/tenure/other-stuff-exists. If, after a decent interval (not setting a deadline or ultimatum - just giving time to see how things play out after the last AFD closes) nothing has been done, then it would be time to take further steps. FOARP ([[Userdelete

talk:FOARP#top|talk]]) 04:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll be back around Jul 21 edit

If you need me for any RfC purposes. — hike395 (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hike395 - well, no-one did it so I decided to take it live myself. FOARP (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precious edit

persons and vibes

Thank you for quality articles such as Sweden during World War I, The Coming War with Japan and Harry Pollitt, for your plans about women writers from Sweden, for your essay about Gravedancing, for expressing vibes, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2866 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gerda Arendt - Thanks for the positive vibes! Very nice to be appreciated! FOARP (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC)FOARPReply[reply]

Hello, FOARP,

I was looking at this AFD and I don't think you have formatted this bundled nomination properly. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to nominate multiple related pages for deletion and follow these guidelines exactly. This AFD involves over a hundred articles and no closer should have to Delete or Keep all of these articles individually. Could you check these instructions and make sure that your listing isn't just a list of articles but is formatted for a proper bundled nomination where XFDCloser will mark each article as Keep, Redirect or Delete? I know at least one of your previous bundled nominations had this problem and all of the articles were not deleted when the discussion was closed. If these was only a handful of articles, I'd be less concerned but this nomination is huge!

If you could double-check this formatting, I know whoever closes the discussion will appreciate it. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 03:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Liz - apologies for this Liz, I've replace the previous article-links with la templates using the find-and-replace function in Notepad++. Hopefully that works. FOARP (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for seeing to this, FOARP. It looks like the AFD was closed earlier today. Liz Read! Talk! 18:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem! FOARP (talk) 19:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles edit

Hi FOARP, I saw that you had started this AFD on the lists of airline destinations. I was wondering what you think about the similar "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles. Here is an example. I feel that these tables violate many of the policies you noted. I think it would be better to replace them with a prose summary. In the above example, one could write, "Several airlines serve Mehrabad Airport. There are flights to various cities across Iran".

There have been a number of discussions on this issue, but no major changes came out of them. One thing editors have done is include references in a new column (example), but most of these are just the airlines' timetables. Sunnya343 (talk) 01:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Frankly I’m not so interested in this “destinations served by airport” issue. Like you say, there hasn’t yet been a consensus on this the way there has been with destinations served by airlines, where there was an RFC which came out with a result against it. WP:CORP has an exception for transport infrastructure which would apply to airports since those are physical facilities, but not to airlines. FOARP (talk) 04:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your perspective. Wouldn't WP:CORP apply to creating articles on airports, rather than to the content within them? Sunnya343 (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GEOLAND changes RFC edit

Thank you for formally withdrawing, but you forgot to sign your closure. Also I think you typoed - it's option 2 that has no chance of passing as I read things (and if option 2 were the one passing I don't think withdrawing the discussion would make sense). Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Fixed - editing fast on mobile phone always unwise! FOARP (talk) 14:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My option 3 might have more success:

Suggest: Legally-recognized populated places are generally considered to be notable, but the creation of short stubs where there is nothing but a database mentioning location online are strongly discouraged. The minimum requirement expected is a population figure or/and some basic facts (former settlements may not have population but other data for instance) and basic location details as a precondition for a stub (like Aung Myay), where the stub resembles a short encyclopedia article instead of an "xxx is a village" type database substub. In cases where there is no population or other data and it resembles a database, consider merging into a tabled list. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CENT archiving edit

Re: Special:Diff/1179173397 – In the future, please be sure to add an entry to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Archive when removing from T:CENT. Thanks! KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfC edit

Hi FOARP, I hope you don't mind my contacting you about the RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" lists in which you participated. Some editors have raised concerns about the way I formatted the RfC, even though I see no difference between its design and that of the RfC on airline destination lists that Beeblebrox started in 2018. I was wondering if you could share your opinion. The discussion is taking place under the October 14 comments of the editors Steelpillow and Trovatore. Sunnya343 (talk) 23:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sunnya343 - I count roughly the same number of bolded yeses and noes there, so I'm not sure it's going to matter as the RFC is likely to be found not to have reached a consensus. FOARP (talk) 10:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see what you mean. I do think that the strength of the arguments on the "No" side are much stronger, but we shall see what the closing summary states. Sunnya343 (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

May I kindly suggest edit

A week or two weeks of pause? I appreciate your efforts, but you may be overwhelming the Polish delsort list. Well, you are overwhelming me. I barely have time to catch up and not many other folks are checking this. It's good to pace yourself (I say this as someone who has nominated thousands of articles for deletion, and have been occasionally criticized for doing it too often...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Piotrus, thanks for getting in touch. I'm happy to pause any more Kotbot nominations for a couple of weeks.
My main goal here is not to go through all of the Kotbot articles - that would be impossible since there are 50,000+ of them. Instead it is to get a feel for the size of the problem. I think during this what has been identified is:
  • Many non-notable communist-era facilities (railway stations, forestry offices, mills etc.) are listed on TERYT as "settlements".
  • Kotbot created a significant number of articles that do not have listings on TERYT, based on the assumption that every PL Wiki article about a place had a TERYT listing. No-one ever actually checked whether these places are listed on TERYT.
  • Some of the locations for which Kotbot created articles simply don't exist.
  • Many of the articles created by Kotbot about "villages" or "hamlets" are not actually about villages/hamlets, but instead about e.g., parts of villages/hamlets.
We've dealt with issues like this before (e.g., the massive number of articles Carlossuarez46 created about places in Iran that turned out to be pumps/petrol stations/bridges/shops etc.). The solution to bot-generated problems is to run another bot to fix them. FOARP (talk) 09:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But since some of them are also good (in some AfDs we agree, but in some, we don't), I am not sure it can be done easily. We may need more community input. @Primefac for your 2c (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Poland for some sample cases). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure what sort of help I can be. If there is a consensus to delete a certain type of page (based on previous AFDs for the topic area) then it is probably best to start batch-nominating them. Primefac (talk) 11:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thinking more. The easy way to find almost-certain errors by Kotbot would be to run a wikidata query for articles it created that have no pl interwiki. Based on my review of what you found so far those are 99% errors or at least, non-notable facilities of various sorts. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that would definitely be a good place to start, and I would certainly agree to it. There was no real verification before Kotbot took these articles from PL Wiki to EN Wiki - the assumption was that PL Wiki had done this already. If PL Wiki has since deleted/redirected these articles, then that assumption at least is no longer valid and the entire basis on which these articles were created is undermined.
Another factor applies, though, which is that EN Wiki and PL Wiki now have more different standards for inclusion than they did in 2008-10 when Kotbot was operating, and that many of the articles on PL Wiki that might meet PL Wiki's ENCY requirements, do not meet the current requirements of WP:N here on EN Wiki. Quite possibly genuine hamlets are still going to meet WP:GEOLAND, but places labelled only "part of [village/hamlet/kolonia]" on the TERYT database are ultimately just places unless something says otherwise, not necessarily inhabited communities - and this is especially the case when attempts at verifying what they are find only empty fields/forest or a single farm/house at the location.
I would be very grateful if you would revisit some of your earlier AFD "weak keep" !votes to see if they are related to actual hamlets, or if potentially these are cases where there was no verifiable hamlet at the site, and redirection or deletion would have been more appropriate. I think some of these votes may have been based on osada being translated as "hamlet", when the place referred to was in reality a former forester's lodge/state farm/PKP facility etc. that wouldn't qualify as a "hamlet" in English. Stok's comments on what got classified as an osada seem particularly relevant here.
All that said, I am very happy to agree to your proposal. FOARP (talk) 08:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But do we have a redirect target for those? Ping me if I voted weak keep somewhere where there's a redirect possibility and I'll re-examine this. I agree that anything that is a "part of village" should almost always be just a redirect. Very few villages have notable parts. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Random musing edit

I glanced at your userpage. Shouldn't it mention Poland as one of your interests too? :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe when I get better at the language, I'm currently visiting Wrocław and am regularly reminded of how poor I am at it! The bot stuff is easy to work on a lot of the time because it was done mechanistically, and so can be undone in part mechanistically (not entirely, obviously). FOARP (talk) 07:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm thinking of starting an RfC on Antarctic geographical features edit

.. but I'm not sure the best way to do it, where the venue should be or whether there is etiquette around open AfDs. Should I start it and link it to the AfD discussion? Or maybe wait for another time? Any thoughts? JMWt (talk) 14:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm much in agreement: the idea that simply copying GNIS directly on to Wikipedia was the right way to go just doesn't make sense even if GNIS is copyright-free. This applies regardless of whether our coverage is grouped on a wider page or spread over lots of stubs: our coverage should not simply be a copy of GNIS, which is a primary source. WP:VPPR is probably the best place to go, but try work-shopping the question at the WP:NGEO page first. FOARP (talk) 14:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I hadn't thought of NGEO as a venue, that makes more sense than the ideas I'd had. JMWt (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Poking the bear edit

Hi there. I apologize for eavesdropping, but you're conversation with Uncle G might be bordering an ANI discussion where neither of you comes out on top (likely a user v user talk ban). I understand you're frustrated at him as he is way more frustrated and taking out the dictionary to hurl insults at your reasonable arguments. That being said, I think you may have to stop messaging him. If he continues to berade you though, well... I guess you'll know what happens next. Conyo14 (talk) 04:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Conyo14, thanks for getting in touch - way ahead of you here. I asked him to tone down the rhetoric and he point-blank refused, so there’s nothing much more to be said. FOARP (talk) 06:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yet another GNIS dump edit

List of places in Idaho: A–K

I checked a few of the red links: all were in GNIS. Not sure how many are legit: some may be, and some definitely aren't. These do not exist for all states. Mangoe (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Polish towns edit

From user Piotrus I learned about the confusion on the English Wikipedia related to articles about Polish towns. We started a conversation about this topic on Piotrus' Polish discussion page. After discussions about deletion on Wikipedia, I saw that you were interested in this. Maybe you'd like to discuss it on my English talk page? XaVi PROpolak (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message edit

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]