Administrators' newsletter – August 2022 edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2022).

 

  Administrator changes

  Valereee
  Anthony Appleyard (deceased) • CapitalistroadsterSamsara

  Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
  • An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.

  Technical news

  • The Wikimania 2022 Hackathon will take place virtually from 11 August to 14 August.
  • Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)

  Arbitration

  • The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.

  Miscellaneous

  • You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
  • Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
  • Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination of Kegley station (Illinois) for deletion edit

 
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kegley station (Illinois) 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/Kegley station (Illinois) 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. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 18:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:French emigrants to Wales edit

 

A tag has been placed on Category:French emigrants to Wales indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 01:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2022 edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2022).

  Guideline and policy news

  • A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
  • An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.

  Technical news

  Arbitration

  • An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
  • The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.

  Miscellaneous

  • The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
  • Voting for candidates for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees is open until 6 September.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Chinese emigrants to South Africa edit

 

A tag has been placed on Category:Chinese emigrants to South Africa indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 01:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lady Gabriella Kingston deletion discussion edit

Hi, @necrothesp, I hope you don't mind me asking this but I'm always keen to learn. You argued for a 'keep' on the Lady Gabriella Kingston deletion discussion. I'd be interested in your thinking. I've looked down your very long and useful list of what you consider establishes notability. You don't mention people with an aristocratic title per se. I was the nominator of the deletion discussion on the basis that there is nothing notable at all about the subject re: WP:GNG. All such material is about trivial matters which in no sense point to notability of itself. Is it your view that any coverage at all of a subject in an acceptable source, however trivial, confers WP notability? This seems to be the principle which underpins your view but i might be wrong. It'd be useful to know for future edits. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 08:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Like all members of the royal family, she is well-known enough and covered enough in the media to be notable. Not so much now, it is true, but when she was young she and her siblings and cousins received considerable coverage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. The nub of my question is whether any old coverage in a credible publication is enough to make someone notable. You say it is. I don't think it is; the coverage should be of something notable, I think. Otherwise, people are notably simply because they're related to someone else who is. Might be a thought to update your list? Thanks, though. Very interesting to hear your view and I'll certainly take it into account in future. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think members of the British royal family really fall within the "people related to someone else" category. They're notable because they're members of one of the most notable and high-profile families in the world and so people are interested in them and they're written about. That's different from being notable because they're just the child/sibling/parent etc of someone else notable; I agree that doesn't provide notability. I have no idea who the prime minister's relations are and wouldn't consider them to be notable just because they're related to the PM, but I certainly know who Lady Gabriella Windsor (as she was) is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, @Necrothesp The consensus, your view, was certainly against mine here and that's what counts. Thanks so much for taking the time to chat. All useful learning experiences for me! All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2022 edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2022).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you! edit

  The Original Barnstar
Hi! This Barnstar is for you! This is for fighting for the Apostolic Catholic Church article during its 2nd and 3rd nomination for deletion. I promise you, that those efforts will not be in vain. Ploreky (talk) 11:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Barnstar for you. edit

  The Barnstar of Diligence
Hi there. Although we don't always see eye to eye on things, just wanted to drop by and let you know that I appreciate all the effort you put into the project. You are a gem! Onel5969 TT me 13:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment edit

Hi-I was trying to make it easier or the readers when I added United Kingdom to the paces in the Batch article. There is also the possibility that are other places named Batch in other countries. Thank You-RFD (talk) 11:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It already says England on all the entries, and as all are in the UK it's an unnecessary header. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interview (2000 film ) has already nominate the deletion. edit

Can you help me the page? Fortunewriter (talk) 08:12, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2022 edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2022).

  Guideline and policy news

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Deputy sheriff" listed at Redirects for discussion edit

  An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Deputy sheriff and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 23#Deputy sheriff until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 07:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message edit

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2022 edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2022).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Filling station edit

I was a bit surprised when that RM was closed as moved especially when 1 !vote (the 1st) only supported the 3rd move, 1 (the 7th) appeared to only support the 3rd move and 1 (the 6th was less bothered where it was moved) and the reason being the Ngram which must be faulty as as noted I'd never heard "Gas station" except perhaps on Wikipedia and while we may give more weight to a source presented than the word of an editor it seems ridiculous not to take the word of people from England that "Gas station" isn't used here, as you put it "an entirely ludicrous claim added that "gas station" is more common even in British English" sums it up well. Lucky it was reconsidered. I think while "Filling station" is accurate we would use "Petrol station" if it was a British topic per WP:COMMONNAME even though they also provide diesel and other fuels but for an international encyclopedia the accurate but less common "Fuel station" makes sense. This is quite similar to Talk:Controlled-access highway#Requested move 21 January 2021 last year though for some reason I confused "Controlled-access highway" and "Dual carriageway" as I though the article was about dual carriageways! Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy New Year, Necrothesp! edit

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Moops T 02:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Vinkov" listed at Redirects for discussion edit

  An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Vinkov and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 4 § Vinkov until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2023 edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2022).

  Guideline and policy news

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

  • Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
  • Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine move, asking for consensus--is it there, and if it is, what is it? edit

Hello Mr @Necrothesp! As you may be aware, there has recently been a lengthy conversation on the talk page for the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article (see Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Requested move 31 December 2022) and the seventh day of the discussion surrounding this move is slowly approaching. As a non-involved & active admin, do you think that there is sufficient consensus to close the move discussion? I come with this request assuming that there is enough consensus regarding the move to use XTheBedrockX's solution, even among those who oppose the move—but I highly suggest you, Sir, take your time and see if there is even a consensus. Thanks, Luxtay the IInd (talketh to me) 16:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Houghton Hall edit

Could you please revert you're move of Houghton Hall, Yorkshire, while the RM was closed as no consensus (which probably should have been no consensus to deviate from the standard form) there was a consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 25#Sussex and Yorkshire disambiguators and the closer of the original RM User:Paine Ellsworth moved it back following my request at User talk:Paine Ellsworth#Houghton Hall. While the RFC wasn't formerly closed its quite clear from the discussion that there was consensus against using the shorter form. While I generally prefer using shorter forms for qualifiers I think the consensus was quite clear that the problems outweighed the benefits, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Necrothesp, you must really be invested deeply in this! Can't imagine how you could revert my page move without first discussing it with me, or at least doing it in a way that would leave me a notification. So where are you on the objective/subjective opinion scale as regards this issue? Consensus at the RfC does seem to be quite clear, my friend. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 20:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, I'm not really bothered, although I obviously do support simple "Yorkshire". However, the decision at RM was to move back to Houghton Hall, Yorkshire, and as I'm sure you're aware it is you who should have discussed it before moving it, whether you were the closer or not, so please, less of the criticism for reverting an undiscussed move. A little high-handed, don't you think? Had there been no RM then that would have been different, but there was, it was closed (by you) as no consensus, and, as has been pointed out, the RfC (which didn't have a great number of contributors in any case) has never been closed. If the RfC gets more attention and is formally closed then that's a different matter, but for now the RM must clearly stand. An unpublicised and undiscussed request on a talkpage really should not be allowed to overrule that or we make a mockery of Wikipedia's procedures. I don't like bureaucracy much, but really? A "secret" consensus of two, overruling those who supported the move back on the article's own talkpage, is really not on, and as experienced editors you should really both know that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting spin on it. You answered my question and then some. Well aware of the RM's decision, no need for the reminder since it was my decision. I had no obligation to discuss it further because the RfC's decision is clear, as I said, so your choice of "high-handed" should not be projected back onto me. As you should know (as an experienced editor), an RfC does not require formal closure if the consensus is clear, and it is the consensus of the RfC that takes precedence over the lack of consensus in the RM. So the only question that remains is your accusation that the RfC was unpubicized, which the first section of it appears to deny. It was a publicized RfC that received sufficient attention to achieve consensus. By removing the decision of the RfC you are going against the present consensus, so please return the page to the title that is presently supported by consensus. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 09:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The consensus of an RfC is only clear if it is well-attended. This was not (which is presumably why it has never been closed). And I didn't say it was unpublicised, as you will see if you reread what I actually wrote. As to "high-handed", I was referring to your claims that I should have discussed the move when you did not. The course of action is clear. Open another RM. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You appear then to agree to move the page back to the title that is presently supported by consensus in the RfC, and then open an RM to propose the move to Houghton Hall, Yorkshire. Is that correct? I will be glad to leave an opinion there, since I have learned much about it from the previous RM and the RfC. If the new RM results in no consensus, then the closer can determine whether or not the RfC consensus prevails. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 10:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I'm happy to leave the article at the title that was agreed, since it was moved yet again without discussion. But it's obviously your prerogative to open a new RM and I will naturally abide by its decision. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Still unclear, since the only title that has achieved any present agreement is Houghton Hall, East Riding of Yorkshire, which found consensus in the RfC. So it seems the correct path would be to hold the article at that agreed upon title, open an RM to rename to Houghton Hall, Yorkshire, which I will be glad to do, and all of us abide by its decision. Is this suitable? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 10:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, as the article was created at Houghton Hall, Yorkshire, moved away from this title, and returned to this title after RM. That is the current agreed-upon title. An unclosed and rather poorly attended RfC is not relevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, okay, so the only lack of clarity here is 1) you think an RfC attended by nine editors with an opinion does not have enough consensus to override an RM that also was attended by nine editors with an opinion and which resulted in no consensus, and 2) you think an RfC that has achieved consensus requires formal closure in direct opposition to WP:CR's Many discussions do not need formal closure (emphasis not mine) because consensus is clear. Perhaps this is a job for an administrative notice board – editor Crouch, Swale, what do you think? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 11:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I really fail to see why you're so upset about a reversion to a move that you initially made following an RM closure! Very odd indeed. No need whatsoever for your tone here. Just open an RM. Conversation closed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I hardly think it's possible that you "fail to see" anything, because you've been around long enough to be able to understand even more than I do. And you've been here long enough to understand Wikipedia's definition of consensus, so I get the idea that, while this as yet unconstructive discussion may have something to do with not being able to have it face-to-face and see body language, facial expressions and so on, it seems you're not revealing something about this. We have an RM that resulted in no consensus either to keep the long title or to move to the short name. In that case the decision meant to revert back to the title that still enjoyed long-term usage. And we have an RfC attended by nine contributing editors that resulted in a change of consensus. So I moved the article back to the long name. Against that consensus you chose to revert my page move. Why would I be upset? It's not like you're the first ever to revert any of my edits. No. You reverted the page move because you don't see the authority that I saw in the RfC's consensus. Therein lies the problem. So maybe we need more eyes on it, that's all I'm saying. And just fyi for the record, in all the time I've been on Wikipedia I have never taken another registered editor to any notice board. Not my style. So, Necrothesp. what is it exactly that I'm missing? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 15:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can assure you that you are missing absolutely nothing. You moved an article against an RM closure (whether it was yours or not is irrelevant). I moved it back and suggested you open another RM. That's it. Any additional complications have been of your making and only yours. I really have no wish to get into any sort of conflict over this, especially not with an experienced editor with whom I have no issues. Please just open your RM and see where it leads and stop suggesting this is anything more than a pointless dispute over nothing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now I think I understand. I moved the article against the RM closure because it had no consensus to a title that does have consensus. You moved it back against the new consensus, and now you expect me to open another RM. That's it. There are no additional complications. You do appear to want a conflict though, but not with me; you are conflicting with policy, and you want to see if you are correct and the policy needs to be tweaked a bit. Yes, this dispute is so pointless, which is why it seems so pointy, and all over "nothing". Okay, I'll bite, and don't expect a non-neutral opening statement from me that puts you in a bad light. Like ya too much for that. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 16:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(11:07 User:Paine Ellsworth reply) The RM had 4 editors (including the nom) support using just "Yorkshire" and 5 supporting using "East Riding of Yorkshire" which there was no consensus found which probably should have meant it should have stayed at "East Riding of Yorkshire" per WP:UKPLACE and WP:UKCOUNTIES and those wanting to deviate start a RFC but at the RFC there looked around 8 editors supporting keeping the standard "East Riding of Yorkshire" due to confusion/complication with not using historic counties while only 1 (you) supporting using "Yorkshire" due to being more concise. While discussions aren't votes it seems quite clear on the discussion there was a clear consensus against using just "Yorkshire". So while I wasn't particularly happy that the previous close took the view of no consensus on a local level rather than a lack of consensus to override the general conventions given the RFC even the closer has agreed to modify the close. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2023 edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2023).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • The Vector 2022 skin has become the default for desktop users of the English Wikipedia.

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

  • Voting in the 2023 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
  • Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bigo Barnett edit

Just wanted to drop in and counsel a bit more effort in your exchanges with other editors. Your significant experience should lead you to make persuasive arguments. When you use your experience as a cudgel — suggesting that someone should simply bow to your edit tally, you are working directly against the interests of what is supposed to be a meritocracy of ideas. Johnadams11 (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, what I am doing is using my experience to try to advise on an acceptable title. Your endless insistence on using his nickname as a disambiguator was never going to be accepted. But you wouldn't have it, because you believed it was the best disambiguator. I merely pointed out to you that had you a little more experience you would know that this is not how things are done on Wikipedia. There is long consensus for this. And consensus is how we operate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I must say, I'm both impressed and dismayed by what appears to be a continual, and apparently willful, misunderstanding of the debate. I indicated not once, but at least four times, that I was comfortable with any number of options for replacing the word "Protestor." To describe this as "endless insistence," is an argument made of either ignorance or bad faith.
Further, the idea, that you "merely" pointed out (that nicknames are not often used) similarly ignores the more important theme: That is, your opposition to anything at all that changed the status quo which you viewed as working "perfectly well." Given that you MUST know that the word "protestor" utterly misrepresents Barnett's notability, I get the distinct sense you somehow had the view that you were defending the fellow institutionalist who authored the article -- and felt someone like me didn't have the gravitas or experience to suggest changing HIS disambiguator.
In the end, it took a uninvolved party what appeared to be only minutes to conclude the general correctness of my view. You really ought to use this opportunity to explore whether your obvious deep engagement with this platform has caused you to lose some of the critical thinking skills that I assume you at one point had. Johnadams11 (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given that you MUST know that the word "protestor" utterly misrepresents Barnett's notability, I get the distinct sense you somehow had the view that you were defending the fellow institutionalist who authored the article -- and felt someone like me didn't have the gravitas or experience to suggest changing HIS disambiguator. Then your "distinct sense" is completely wrong, as I neither know nor care who authored the article! Neither do I care about the subject of the article. I do, however, know about how Wikipedia titles its articles, have been involved in these debates for many years and seen consensus evolve during that time. Simple fact. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well I assume then you'll appeal the MR. I look forward to getting least one layer of depth on your low effort arguments that Barnett was "protestor" and that this term describes him "perfectly well." Johnadams11 (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I won't appeal it as the new name was decided by consensus. I may not agree it was necessary to move it (and I still do not), but that's irrelevant. I take it that you really do not understand consensus. That's how everything works here and it would behove you to take that on board instead of coming along and claiming that consensus built over many years is wrong and you know best and that "institutionalists" are undermining your superior arguments. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pinged on RM page edit

https://metro.co.uk/video/apartment-block-collapses-anl-urfa-earthquake-2871281/ Metro is a mainstream newspaper in UK, the main evening paper in London. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would hardly call Metro a "mainstream newspaper". It is a free newssheet mostly distributed at railway stations and the like. Not just in London, and in the mornings, not the evenings. I would give its reporting no more credit than that of its parent, the Daily Mail. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

KVV Subrahmanyam edit

Hello Necrothesp, Thanks for your reply. Pls help in providing suggestions for improving this article. Can we remove the delete tag please? Pls let me know. 04:45, 9 March 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbala1055 (talkcontribs)

Hello Necrothesp,

Thanks a lot for copyediting the article. I have some references to vizag steel plant. (https://www.vizagsteel.com/index.asp) and some newspaper references. Can I add them inline ?

By when can we remove the delete tag? Pls let me know. Kbala1055 (talk) 09:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2023 edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2023).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Colombian emigrants to England edit

 

A tag has been placed on Category:Colombian emigrants to England indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 01:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for unprotection of list of honorary British knights and dames edit

This page was protected 13 years ago and nowadays it's edited somewhat infrequently. Over the past few months however, what appears to be 1 or 2 users with very volatile IPs have made a long slew of valid edit requests (see the talk page). I think the page is worth unprotecting. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update: I requested the page be unprotected through RFUP. It's been done now. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Snowmanonahoe: I originally protected it due to the number of editors who were adding anyone who had been knighted, not understanding that this was only for honorary knighthoods (and probably not understanding the difference). Hopefully we won't have another slew of these. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed deletions edit

Hello, Necrothesp,

I just wanted to thank you for looking over some recent PRODs. They don't get as much attention as articles nominated for AFD discussions so it's great when an experienced editor reviews them before they are deleted. Of course, these articles can be restored upon request but for many of these obscure articles, no one might even realize they have been deleted once they are gone. Thanks again. Liz Read! Talk! 20:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, I thought I'd mention that a fair number of articles that are PROD'd are tagged by newer editors or IP editors, perhaps because it doesn't require the level of knowledge of policies and guidelines that defending an AFD nomination requires...and also IP editors can not nominate artices for AFD discussions. Just an observation though. Liz Read! Talk! 20:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Liz. Thanks. I generally try to look at the prod categories once a week to check whether any have been incorrectly prodded. Most are valid prods, but there are always a few that aren't. Sadly, prodding seems to be used as an alternative to AfD even by some experienced editors who should know better. I have a suspicion that some like to use it instead so it does slip under the radar! I should point out that I have in the past been threatened by editors with "sanctions" for deprodding articles (which, of course, is any editor's right) and have a couple of times even been reported at ANI for "disruptive editing" and "vandalism" for doing so. Some people really do not like to be thwarted in their deletionist agenda! -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:50, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2023 edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2023).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Red Wizards of Thay edit

Since you voted in the AFD to keep, I am just letting you know that I am working on Draft:Red Wizard. :) BOZ (talk) 00:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also got Draft:Harpers (Forgotten Realms) restored. BOZ (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Judaea edit

I was somewhat remiss in not checking the talk pages for previous RMs, but I spend a lot of my time out in the wilderness on pages where barely a talk page exists and the parenthetical title frankly didn't look like something that would have emerged from an RM properly weighing the options and considering WP:NCDAB. As it was, it was a rather cursory affair it seems. Fresh RM. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Autry technology Center edit

I notice you moved the discussion on deletion of the Autry Technology Center page to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Oklahoma page pretty much verbatim. What's your take on this? I can't understand why there is even an argument about sufficient notability to get a page for a school of higher education that’s fully accredited, was formed back in 1967, has 22,724 current students, fills 2 physical campuses and has an on-line presence, and has been specifically named by employers as a reason they located to that town. ESPECIALLY when you compare Autry against the laundry list of other pages of far smaller/more mediocre schools, including high schools, that reviewers have looked at and concluded are worthy of a page. The article, of course, can always be tweeked but—- arguing the subject is unworthy of a page? Really??! TulGuy (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you've got the wrong person. I merely added the discussion to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools so it would be seen by a wider audience. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

user page vandalism edit

If you don't want people vandalizing your user page I think you should semi-protect or protect it if that's possible. 205.213.208.210 (talk) 18:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A pointer for sources? edit

Hi! If I recall correctly, you had a knack for finding sources for older English/UK biographies, any tips on where to look for Charles Howard, 9th Earl of Suffolk? There's no notability concern, but I'd like to get rid of the {{Unreferenced}} maintenance tag nevertheless. Ljleppan (talk) 08:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maurice Aubert edit

Hi! You objected to my proposed deletion of Maurice Aubert on the grounds that the subject meets WP:ANYBIO 1; what exactly are you basing that assessment on? As I mentioned in the proposal, the sources in the French article are mostly unusable, and none of them even mention any awards or nominations. I'd really like to understand your thought process for this, because I seem to be missing something that's very obvious to you. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The French article mentions a number of significant awards. Prodding is for uncontroversial deletion only. Any hint that an article may be notable, and AfD is the correct way to proceed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It appears that you have made the same objection in the deletion discussion, but there are still no sources for these supposed awards. Actualcpscm (talk) 11:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which is why it needs further discussion so maybe someone can find some. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Tibetan emigrants has been nominated for renaming edit

 
Category:Tibetan emigrants has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2023 edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2023).

  Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.

  Technical news

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Barbadian emigrants to Wales edit

 

A tag has been placed on Category:Barbadian emigrants to Wales indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 01:11, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Emigrants from Georgia (country) to Switzerland edit

 

A tag has been placed on Category:Emigrants from Georgia (country) to Switzerland indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 01:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Indonesian emigrants to the United Kingdom edit

 

A tag has been placed on Category:Indonesian emigrants to the United Kingdom indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 01:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Obscene Publications Squad edit

It's a lousy redirect, the article it points to isn't, except in passing, about the subject. DuncanHill (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's simply not true. But feel free to expand it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion edit

Hi, I saw your opinion at Silver Star discussion.

I think that you are good at military field.

If you have spare time, Can you participate in below discussion?
Spartan_3000 Discussion

Anyway, Thanks!Footwiks (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Red Countess edit

But that's the point - Wikipedia does not run on common knowledge among those who already know about a subject, but on relevant citations from reliable sources. Thank you for inserting two now.Sbishop (talk) 12:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The point is that I had already included a reliable source, which for some bizarre reason you doubted. Which seemed to me to be some sort of WP:POINTY deletion of properly sourced material. If an experienced editor adds a sourced fact then it is frankly bad form to delete it without checking it first. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ANI Notice edit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.  // Timothy :: talk  03:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is specifically a request there for you to clarify whether this comment was meant seriously or in jest. Thanks in advance. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Last Change edit

Why do you keep taking down the links to Tim Duncan and David Robinson on the Duncan Robinson page? What's the purpose of it? Wikipedia should be linking to other articles always 108.49.234.81 (talk) 02:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see MOS:DABONE. On disambiguation pages we do not link everything, but only a single link per line. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2023 edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2023).

  Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
  • As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.

  Technical news

  • Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.

  Arbitration

  • The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Alabama State Parks Ranger Division edit

 

A tag has been placed on Alabama State Parks Ranger Division requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Fram (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2023 edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2023).

 

  Administrator changes

  Novem Linguae
 

  Bureaucrat changes

  MBisanz

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  Arbitration

  • Two arbitration cases are currently open. Proposed decisions are expected 5 July 2023 for the Scottywong case and 9 July 2023 for the AlisonW case.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ANI Notice edit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding lack of civility in WP:CFD. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles about Korean War edit

Hello, Necrothesp~ Recently, I created articles about Korean War

But some user want to delete these articles. If you have the spare time, please participate in the discussion.

Best regards Footwiks (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Listed buildings edit

I deproded The Margaret Catchpole, Ipswich as a gradeII* listed pub which seems to have enough sources. I'd say most pubs that are listed even at grade II are likely to be notable as many will have other coverage beyond the listing and are important to the community as opposed to a private modest house which may not. There is also Draft:Isaacs on the Quay which is grade II* but the warehouse is grade I

I also have a draft RFC at User:Crouch, Swale/Listed buildings and I'm wandering if you have anything you wish to add/any suggestions or anyone else who isn't in the pings or any other pages such as User:Necrothesp/List of AfD discussions for heritage-listed buildings that may be of interest. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm curious as to why you think an RfC is necessary, given all listed buildings very clearly meet WP:GEOFEAT. The implication is that a special case should be made for British listed buildings. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/172 High Street, Elstow (2nd nomination) and the fact many doesn't seem to have any sourcing outside the listing. I'd question if all listed buildings in England or other countries should be presumed notable. See de:Liste der denkmalgeschützten Objekte in Kauns for example where it seems only the church has an article or in England Listed buildings in Dalston, Cumbria where only 3 out of 93 have articles. It would probably be better for both places to just cover the buildings in the municipality list as we do and only have articles for a few of them. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But whether they have articles yet is irrelevant. Wikipedia is a work in progress. It just means nobody has yet written one. But, as I said, I see no reason to make a special case for listed buildings in the UK. It sets a dangerous precedent for deletionists who would dearly love to get as many articles removed as possible. The UK lists a lot of buildings because (a) we have a lot of historic buildings, and (b) because we're unusually good at designating and protecting our heritage. Much better, in fact, than most other European countries, and worlds better than the vast majority of non-European countries (with the exception of the USA and former Dominions). Almost any building that is listed Grade II in England would probably make the NRHP in the United States because our built heritage history goes back much, much further, and you'd certainly get screams of protest if you tried to remove the WP:GEOFEAT status for buildings on that. Why create a special RfC just for the UK? It's just asking for trouble. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I now not talking about just the UK I'm talking about all countries. I'd be skeptical we need a standalone article on every listed building or equivalent. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

St Mark's CofE School, Southampton edit

While I know that you have your own personal notability preferences, please don't tell new users that secondary schools are still automatically notable. I've taken it to AfD per protocol. Declining PRODs isn't inherently an administrator action, but it's going to be interpreted differently when an admin says that. Apart from that, why would British secondary schools somehow be inherently more notable than those in another place? Acroterion (talk) 12:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't say anything of the sort. I deprodded it, as I am entirely at liberty to do. Prods are for uncontroversial deletion only. A fact that is conveniently overlooked by far too many editors. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, deprodding is available on nearly any grounds, and that contestation is grounds for an AfD. Calling it a "controversial" PROD is a stretch, it appears to be controversial to you because you have a set of personal inclusion standards that are very broad and are at odds with the consensus for such articles that has prevailed for years. Once again, I can't say that I understand why western secondary schools should merit a special exception; the usual complaint is that enwiki ignores non-Western topics in favor of marginal Western or English topics. However, my main concern is that in deprodding it, you gave the article creator the impression that you were citing current inclusion guidelines, which is not the case. Your response at AfD is a bit over the top too. I'm fine with whatever the outcome is, but please lay off the "complete misrepresentation" accusations. Acroterion (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have little else to add, other than I stand by everything I have said here, on the deprodding and at the AfD. I entirely agree about WP:SYSTEMICBIAS, incidentally. However, I've given up deprodding most non-western school articles because the deletionists have got their way over those and it's a waste of my time. This is very definitely not the case with western school articles as the AfD thus far proves. Given there are already two keep votes, deletion was hardly uncontroversial, which entirely proves my point whichever way it eventually goes! -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In an ANI thread in February you were asked to stop misrepresenting school notability. I am generally sympathetic to keeping articles about things, events and places (I have different views concerning people or organizations who have not necessarily sought a place in WP, or those who have all too avidly tried for one), but I disagree that somehow GNG can be stretched to apply to any secondary school (leaving out the peculiar Western stipulation), which appears me to be sliding into mere proof of existence, that you are using to posit automatic notability. This isn't something that to me merits a return to ANI, but I remind you that sentiment was running against your stance. I'm also not a fan of AfDs as hills to die on, so I've said all I will say there, and if your reference work (thank you for that) is seen as satisfactory at AfD, I am content. Acroterion (talk) 12:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In an ANI thread in February you were asked to stop misrepresenting school notability. Where's that then? I can't find it. I have misrepresented nothing whatsoever. I would remind you that the AfD is currently running in favour of keeping this article. So my decision to deprod was obviously a correct one (not that it actually needed to be, as any editor can deprod any article without any justification whatsoever). -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, January 2018 [1]. I was looking at the archive's timestamp, which must have been edited by a bot recently. I do not see anything in the last five years that would affect the admonishment in that discussion. Acroterion (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, so you're citing a five-year-old discussion and claiming it has relevance here? No, it does not. I'm not citing consensus or SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I removed a prod, as I am entitled to do, and expressed an opinion about notability (backed up by sources) at AfD, as I am entitled to do. Once again, misrepresentation. Please cease. I am rather tired, incidentally, of suggestions that deprodding is not valid. It is always valid, for any reason or none, as clearly laid out in WP:PROD. I am mystified as to why editors don't like taking articles to AfD for full discussion. Surely discussion is a good thing? -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You keep stating that I objected to the dePROD. As my very first message in this thread states, it's your assertion in the edit summary [2] that "British secondary schools have always been found to be notable." Perhaps by you, but that's a misstatement of the school notability guidelines, which the new user accepted as gospel [3] That is my concern, I couldn't care less about dePRODding or AfD. That is why I opened this discussion, not because of the dePROD. You were leading a rather young (apparently) new user astray. That is the source of my initial post on this page, not what you appear to think is a procedural issue. Please take more care with how an edit summary might be percieved. "I disagree, I think it's notable" is not an implied statement of policy or consensus, and we would not be having this conversation if you had stated it as your standard, not the encyclopedia's. It's a small point that doesn't merit more discussion, and perhaps I did not state it as plainly as I could have at the top of this thread. I'll not trouble you again. Acroterion (talk) 23:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good grief. I made a true statement. They have always been found to be notable at AfD. I don't honestly recall any British secondary school ever being deleted at AfD. That clearly means that prodding a British secondary school is not uncontroversial and should not be done. And throwing around ANI as some sort of implied threat is beneath an admin. I've seen it before from obsessive deletionists who object to other editors deprodding anything and forcing them do a bit of work by taking articles to AfD. I do not expect it from an experienced administrator. You know as well as I do that I have done everything within guidelines. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And the fact the article has been easily kept at AfD just illustrates that the prod was not uncontroversial! -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RM notice edit

Hello Necrothesp. A few months ago you participated in an RM at Talk:Wedding of Prince Albert and Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon#Requested move 23 March 2023. There is now a similar RM at Talk:Wedding of Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden, and Daniel Westling#Requested move 4 August 2023 if you'd like to participate! Cheers, estar8806 (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2023 edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2023).

 

  Administrator changes

  Firefangledfeathers
 

  Interface administrator changes

  Novem Linguae

  Technical news

  Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Administrators' newsletter – September 2023 edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2023).

  Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
  • A discussion at WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for dead names found that [s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.

  Technical news

  Arbitration

  • The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.

  Miscellaneous

  • Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:German emigrants to Kenya edit

 

A tag has been placed on Category:German emigrants to Kenya indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 01:09, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:German emigrants to Malta edit

 

A tag has been placed on Category:German emigrants to Malta indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 01:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Maltese people of German descent edit

 

A tag has been placed on Category:Maltese people of German descent indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 01:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Guyanese emigrants to Scotland edit

 

A tag has been placed on Category:Guyanese emigrants to Scotland indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 07:05, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:British police officers in India has been nominated for merging edit

 
Category:British police officers in India has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 01:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move discussion edit

There is currently a Request Move discussion about William IV. Since you participated in the previous move discussion involving William IV, I thought you might want to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Johnny Morris edit

Hello, I've added a new topic to that Talk page about the absurd decision not to prioritise Morris over some obscure businessman, in case the issue can be revisited. Regards Billsmith60 (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precious anniversary edit

Precious
 
Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023 edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2023).

  Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC is open regarding amending the paid-contribution disclosure policy to add the following text: Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage.

  Technical news

  • Administrators can now choose to add the user's user page to their watchlist when changing the usergroups for a user. This works both via Special:UserRights and via the API. (T272294)

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Aden emigrants to England has been nominated for merging edit

 
Category:Aden emigrants to England has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Aden emigrants to Scotland has been nominated for merging edit

 
Category:Aden emigrants to Scotland has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Lance corporal edit

Thank you for your 176K contributions to wikipedia!!!

You reverted my recent edit on Lance corporal. I had removed the phrase "... and is typically the lowest non-commissioned officer (NCO)" You reverted that and modified it with " ... and is typically the lowest non-commissioned officer (NCO) rank where it is used." with the comment "clearly means in the countries in which it is used!" which to my ears seemed a bit snarky, for the following reasons ...

1) There is nothing clear about not saying "where it is used." If you don't say that, it is not clear which you mean:

a) of the set of all lance corporals, the majority/typical are NCOs.
b) the majority/typical organization's lance corporals are NCOs

2) You provided no citation that validates either interpretation of the original statement

a) it is typically the lowest non-commissioned officer (NCO) everywhere.
b) it is typically the lowest non-commissioned officer (NCO) where it is used.

I assumed you meant a) the majority of all lance corporals, anywhere, and given that it is the most common enlisted rank in the USMC, and there was no citation, I thought it better to not make such a declarative statement in the lede (which I viewed was ambiguous with no citation)

Now that it is clear that you mean case b), do you have evidence that in the majority of countries that use the lance corporal rank, it is in fact a non-commissioned officer? Or was that mainly informed from your UK military perspective (as mine was from my US military perspective)? If so please provide a citation somewhere in the article, or I belevie we should remove the statement from the lede.

Thank you for considering my position.  • Bobsd •  (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have absolutely no problem with the sentence being removed. I didn't add it in the first place and it doesn't add much to the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, I'll go ahead and remove it again.  • Bobsd •  (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Treacle People DePROD edit

Hello, I saw that you deprodded my PROD for The Treacle People, saying it was "clearly" not a candidate for prodding. I am a relatively inexperienced editor, so I just wanted clarification on this if possible.

Thanks, Coalah (talk) Coalah (talk) 13:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update: I have just reviewed the process for controversial deletions and realize my mistake, I will be pursuing deletion in AfD. Apologies for the mistake! Coalah (talk) Coalah (talk) 13:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem. Far more experienced editors than you do it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:African emigrants to the United Kingdom has been nominated for merging edit

 
Category:African emigrants to the United Kingdom has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2023 edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2023).

 

  Administrator changes

  0xDeadbeef
  Tamzin
  Dennis Brown

  Interface administrator changes

  Pppery
 

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  Arbitration

  • Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 12 November 2023 until 21 November 2023 to stand in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections.
  • Xaosflux, RoySmith and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee Elections. BusterD is the reserve commissioner.
  • Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
  • Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
  • Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
  • Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
  • An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment from SilverLocust edit

Hi Necrothesp. Did you see my reply at Talk:State actor#Requested move 31 October 2023? I would appreciate clarification about what information was the basis for your oppose, since it seems refutable by a brief glance at the article's references. I could be wrong, but I think you are probably thinking of the international concept (see non-state actor) rather than the U.S. legal concept (which is what the state actor article covers). SilverLocust 💬 10:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Yemeni emigrants to England edit

 

A tag has been placed on Category:Yemeni emigrants to England indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 06:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

St. to St edit

Hi Necrothesp. My understanding of MOS in MOS:POINTS is that "Modern style is to use a full point (period) after a shortening" apart from certain stated exceptions (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Abbreviations#Exceptions), so when editing church articles (which tend to use the full stop randomly), I have been adding the point where it is missing. I've just noticed that you have been doing the opposite, such as at [4]. I have no interest in which way it goes (point or no point), though feel that we should have some consistency between and within articles, so that the reader isn't left feeling uncertain, and so every editor knows what they should do. Is there explicit wording which can be pointed to which confirms for sure which way it should be? Or should we look to gain consensus to have such wording in MOS to prevent confusion, and to ensure that all church articles use the same method, and that the title of an article matches the content - unlike what is happening at Avenue St Andrew's United Reformed Church? SilkTork (talk) 10:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Modern convention in British English, both on and off Wikipedia, is not to use a full stop. So American English articles should use them and British English articles should not. Commonwealth English (apart from Canadian) usually follows the British style. This has long been the convention on Wikipedia, although MOS pages do not always reflect this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, the long held modern convention has not been well applied on Wiki, out there in the real world, and by the churches themselves. But you agree with me that the MOS pages do not give solid advice on this point? What I'm interested in is seeing that the MOS pages do reflect something that will ensure consistency. I'll start a discussion later (dashing out now to pick up my daughter from St Mary's church, which does it the British way - no dot!). SilkTork (talk) 14:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It has generally been very well-applied on articles about British churches. There is no need for consistency between articles applying to different countries per WP:ENGVAR. I should note that the "St." form actually makes no sense, as nothing has been omitted after the "t"! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In fact, MOS:POINTS does support use of "St". Contractions that do not contain an apostrophe almost always take a period in North American English, but not in British English when the contraction ends with the same letter as the full term: Doctor can be abbreviated Dr. in American and Canadian English, but is Dr in British English. This would equally apply to "St". -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination of Metropolitan Police Office for deletion edit

 
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Metropolitan Police Office 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/Metropolitan Police Office 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.
Elshad (talk) 21:04, 26 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) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2023 edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2023).

  Guideline and policy news

  Arbitration

  • Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
  • The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
  • Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 11, 2023 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sir edit

Thank you for speaking out on the "Sir" infobox stuff. A couple of users have been waging attritional warfare on this issue for years, and I am glad people are finally pushing back. Atchom (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Most of the opposition seems very much based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. "I disapprove of titles, ergo I don't think they should be included" is not, to my knowledge, Wikipedia policy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Listed buildings edit

In terms of listed buildings with ancillary structures look at Playford Hall, Draft:Isaacs on the Quay (where one of the buildings is a higher listing!), Draft:Sharlston Hall and Plaish Hall. In these cases {{Infobox historic site}} has included all the structures in a single article. I guess the reason ancillary structures sometimes get listed separately and we get listing that say "including attached outbuildings" etc is probably because these buildings were listed before the rule about structures within the curtilage of the building was included. I don't think I've seen any modern listings saying "including attached buildings or outbuildings" etc where the main building still exists unlike say the Firestone Tyre Factory[5]. If any of my examples had have been listed today its quite likely none of the ancillary structures would have been separately listed assuming they are in the curtilage of the building. So in terms of notability I'd argue that ancillary structures don't generally need separate articles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would agree, unless they are especially notable (I would also note that many walls, gates, etc, are individually listed - they certainly don't need their own articles). Although they certainly should be included in the article for the main building. As usual, it's a case of applying common sense, something of which many editors seem incapable. One size almost never fits all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The law regarding curtilage came into effect on 1 January 1969. There are still a few listings like Park Farmhouse and Barn To the Right from 1972 though. I guess its possible the barn could not have been in the curtilage or they just wanted to make sure it was clearly listed. Indeed I agree a few ancillary buildings like gates etc will need separate articles even though most won't. You're right one size doesn't fit all. I'm just trying to get some general rules. Look at Grade I listed buildings in Buckinghamshire#Aylesbury Vale which lists some 26 Grade I ancillary buildings to Stowe House none of which have separate articles though the 25 in the garden have sections in the garden article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy holidays! edit

P Aculeius (talk) 13:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2024 edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for improving a page I published edit

@Necrothesp: Thank you for improving Paul Emery (rheumatologist) with content, sources, and moving it from Paul Emery (academic). Particleshow22 (talk) 13:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination of Receiver of the Metropolitan Police for deletion edit

 
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Receiver of the Metropolitan Police 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/Receiver of the Metropolitan Police 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.

Oaktree b (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Security Bureau (disambiguation) edit

 

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

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

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

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

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Bensci54 (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, Necro. Twinkle sent you this automatically. Looking into it a bit more, it looks like what I did at WP:RMTR to move