To do list

  1. Check Saarland districts for updated numbers when the official final results come out. 2/4 RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  2. Fix Angelus ad virginem (short term) - W.I.P. User:RandomCanadian/sandbox#Angelus_ad_virginem
  3. Fix Church cantata (short-to-mid term)
  4. Gustaf Düben & Düben collection
  5. Abendmusik (DYK for one the two final Sundays before Advent, as the actual Abendmusiken were)
  6. Draft:List of compositions based on the British national anthem (non-priority)
  7. Whatever else is in my sandbox
    1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of prime ministers of New Zealand by date of birth - under consideration
    2. Category:Lists of political office-holders by age - finish clean-up

Church cantata

Sigh on a Monday morning. I am not happy about the split of Church cantata and the derived list. How are you planning to resolve all these links to particular occasions. Example: BWV 1, link coded Church cantata#Annunciation (25 March), going nowhere, in estimated hundred cantatas (all FAs and GAs at least). Easiest solution: revert the split. Solution 2: go over all these and change the link. Solution 3: go over all occasions and make a redirect. I have no time for any of those today (have already a horrible load of things waiting for a reply, including In Freundschaft as you know), sorry, and would find 2 not elegant (a monster of an article name instead of plain Church cantata), and 3 even more of an Easter egg than we already have. Solution 4: leave Church cantata as it was and make a sortable list under the new name in addition. Help?? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]

@Gerda Arendt: I'm sorry Gerda; the existing article was well and truly a list under what really is an encyclopedic topic. The easiest solution is to make a WP:AWBREQ so that all links to a subsection now link to the subsection under the new title. I'll go ahead and do just that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thank you but not happy. The present Church cantata tells readers not much, and they have to click again to get to useful information? Really? - Please at least have the list linked in the lead, instead of a See also. (I don't know if any reader ever looks at See also. I don't.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
ps: The article Church cantata (Bach) began as List of Bach cantatas by liturgical function, and I prefer the concise name to the "correct" list description. Will that be the next one moved (which would be moved back)? At least then the links wouldn't be broken because of a redirect. Solution 5 to the first problem: move the former Church cantata to the list name, with Church cantata as a redirect? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Church cantata (Bach) could likely get rid of the parenthetical and become Bach cantata; and cover everything (adding a small section about secular cantatas wouldn't be too hard) ; and yeah; the list would likely also need to be split out to the former title. The problem as I see it is that all of these are notable topics covered to a lot of depth in academic literature (i.e. more specifically, in exactly the topic I'm currently reading for university courses), but currently the coverage we have of them is mostly limited to these two (now two and half, since the new church cantata is obviously a work in progress) lists. The ultimate idea of what the finished product would look like is something like Fugue (with the caveat that cantatas are a less rigid form and that they evolved through their history) - so analysis of musical structures common to the works; a bit of history (what we now term "cantata" is really a whole lot of oversimplification, since in effect, church music consisting of voices accompanied by instruments [essentially what we call a cantata, and what was known to contemporaries as "figured music" or even simply "sacred music"] was present in 17th-century Germany [look at Buxtehude], in many different shapes and forms, although not yet with the Italianate air-recitative structure that would come to dominate the landscape, notably in the work of Bach - a good example of the "old style" in Bach is something like BWV 106, with the combination of ideas and continuous composition style [all of this is taken from the cited work by Cantagrel - I assume that's not too much help to you]); ... : that would obviously include place for naming composers (ideally as running text and not as a plain list) as well as for listing the more prominent examples and linking to the whole list. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Go ahead, good ideas. (I still think the split could have been done after expanding. Hundreds of links at present going to a stub leaves me uneasy. I'm almost ready - now that at least the two last-day-DYK noms are done - to fix at least the FAs. Here we claim highest quality, and then link readers to an unrelated stub ...) We already have detailed articles about Bach's church cantata cycles and his secular cantatas. And we have Bach cantata. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
"Bach-centrism"; as I was saying, then. I'll give you a notice when the AWB task is done; there's about 550-odd links, it's probable some will need manual adjustment. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]

ITN recognition for 2021 Canadian federal election

 On 25 September 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2021 Canadian federal election, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. 331dot (talk) 23:28, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]

331dot (talk) 23:28, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Reform Party of Canada ‎

If you got time and are interested ... Talk:Reform Party of Canada#‎political position.--Moxy-  21:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]

@Moxy: I haven't got time (there's an actual course work IRL I ought to be doing about this); but I've provided you with a few citations. Some of them contain interesting sources in their respective bibliographies (the book chapter by Malloy cites: Trevor Harrison, Of Passionate Intensity: Right-Wing Populism and the Reform Party of Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995)). If you don't have access you can leave me an email and I can send you the relevant bits (this will avoid you having to go to WP:RX for the same). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Will review .....have access... thank you so much for your work.--Moxy-  22:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]

JOBTITLES discussion close

Hi RandomCanadian! You recently closed this infobox style discussion. Are you aware that there are ongoing efforts to write a panel close? You can see coordination at WP:CR and on at least one user talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Nevermind. Just saw your post there. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Firefangledfeathers: Yeah, sorry about that; I actually wasted far too much time myself figuring whether what the "result" of that was, before ending up with the only thing that it could most certainly not be. Reminding everybody of the Law of triviality and that, ultimately, it's not the end of the world, seemed a far better option. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I have a different view than you on this, but I can certainly empathize with feeling like way too much time has been spent on this issue. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Editors are each free to work on whatever interests them. If you feel it is trivial, don't work on it. ― Tartan357 Talk 05:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Tartan357: What I find trivial is people getting all excited to argue about literally a punctuation preference. The only thing that discussion shows is evidence that JOBTITLE is a disputed guideline (hence why merely citing the guideline is not a magic keyword); hence the step I proposed: resolve the core dispute about the guideline instead of wasting time arguing about whether the guideline needs to be applied in a specific context. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
If you had read my close challenge, you'd know that I did not dispute Chetsford's no consensus close, but rather the status quo that such a close should refer back to. The panel closers are working to determine what the status quo was. Please let them do their work. ― Tartan357 Talk 05:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Tartan357: As I said, I did not read those discussions until after the fact, and then I only briefly looked at Chet's close and scrolled very rapidly through the AN. If it's even unsure what the status quo was, then I don't think it's worth the time and effort (especially if it is across "thousands of articles") to determine what this is (especially not when the RfC question already implies there is a status quo). At least, the last time something like that happened to me, the solution was simple: remove the disputed element altogether (here). If the issue is whether it should be "Xth president" or "Xth President"; then just remove "Xth" and now you have something that causes no dispute. i.e. example:
Extended content
Joe Biden
President of the United States
Assumed office
January 20, 2021
Vice PresidentKamala Harris
Preceded byDonald Trump
Vice President of the United States
In office
January 20, 2009 – January 20, 2017
PresidentBarack Obama
At least, seems like the most efficient way to not have endless RfCs on the matter RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Removing ordinals from such infoboxes, may be heavily challenged by many. Particularly concerning the US political articles. The ordinal option, would likely be best worked out, on a country-by-country basis. GoodDay (talk) 09:28, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
FWIW, which option was decided. GoodDay (talk) 09:23, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@GoodDay: (replying to both comments): In that case, if it's too much trouble, and people get ired about the number, it's probably best to just leave it as is, in the spirit of not wasting editor time and ressources on minor details. "Which option" - there was a change proposed; this change did not achieve consensus and should naturally not be enacted; so go back to the previous sentence and replace "number" with "punctuation". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Best to leave office titles capitalised in the infoboxes, as that's how they currently are. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Coming attraction

There's a strong chance you're likely going to get challenged (from Lecen) on your RFC closure at Pedro I of Brazil. Ya may want to keep that article on your watch-list. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Well, that didn't take long. See below. GoodDay (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

@GoodDay: Unsurprising. What I was more and unpleasantly surprised with was the behavioural issue I note in my post scriptum, which could warrant a visit to the dramaboard if it persists. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Myself & Lecen have bumped heads a few times over the years, at Pedro I of Brazil and certainly at Pedro II of Brazil. PS - I've grown familiar with his approach to content disputes, at those two bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

RfC on Pedro I of Brazil

Could you clarify your stance on the RfC on the article about Pedro I of Brazil? There was clearly no majority nor even a consensus concerning any changes to an article that has been stable for ten years. In fact, almost none of the people involved were past contributors of that article nor have any knowledge of Brazilian history or historiography. The articles uses the Portuguese names for Portuguese people because that is what the sources do. Past contributors, such as myself, Astynax and DrKay have opposed the changes, explaining the reasons. One editor called GoodDay (see above) who has no knowledge of the topic but has been trying to force the change for over ten years now, created a RFC with two confusing options without any proper discussion on the matter, including on the sources. I’m trying to understand what you did there and if you actually told us to make the changes the GoodDay wants, despite going against sources and the experience of past contributors, as well as lacking any kind of consensus. --Lecen (talk) 21:36, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

The first part of your objection, regarding past contributors and the previous status of the article, holds no weight, insofar it is contrary to established Wikipedia practice. Nobody owns an article, and nobody has a final say: articles are understood to be continuous works in progress, and even featured articles can be improved. In addition, Wikipedia is a collaborative project, so editors are expected to collaborate with others, which includes accepting criticism of and improving existing articles. Accusing another editor of bad faith and of having "no knowledge of the topic" is an obvious ad hominem, which is also rather nearer the bottom of this handy little pyramid.
The second part of your argument claims that the RfC is malformed (because it has "two confusing options"). A simple binary choice between using one language or the other (for consistency within the same article) does not seem confusing or inappropriate to me.
Now, as to the final part, you are arguing that my close is incorrect because it goes against sources, and because it apparently lacks consensus, in your opinion. To explain my reasoning on this, requires a familiarity with Wikipedia's policies regarding the use of foreign languages and regarding article titles. The appropriate section of the manual of style, MOS:FOREIGN, mentioned by a few contributors to the discussion, states that "In deciding whether and how to translate a foreign name into English, follow English-language usage. If there is no established English-language treatment for a name, translate it if this can be done without loss of accuracy and with greater understanding for the English-speaking reader." To demonstrate this, those arguing in favour overwhelmingly pointed to WP:COMMONNAME, which suggests that articles (including about figures from non-English countries) should prefer "the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) ." Many editors in the discussion point out that the indicated articles are indeed at their English titles (which is also consistent with other parts of the title policy, such a "The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English."); and that using the same name as the most common name of the subject (as attested by existing usage on Wikipedia) is coherent with other style guide suggestions, such as not surprising the reader and favouring English terms or names if those are preferred by English-language sources. Between that and unsupported assertions that most modern sources use Portuguese (no source, citation or quotation is provided, and the argument that sources in the article use it is not helpful since most of them are in Portuguese, so not much use - if we go back to the little pyramid I linked earlier, that's "Contradiction - states the opposing case with little or no supporting evidence"); I must obviously give precedence to arguments which are more logically convincing and which are more in line with Wikipedia policy, as any closer is expected to do; and since discussions are not votes.
Obviously, this is probably not the answer you wanted to hear. Hopefully, you at least understand the issues and principles which guided my decision. In addition, as the tone of your comment here seems to indicate you are not satisfied with my close, I would suggest you heed the advice of WP:CLOSECHALLENGE: "Simply believing a closure is wrong, even if reasonable people would have closed it differently, is not usually sufficient for overturning the result." RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
p.s. I notice that the issue about other editors is not new or unique to this talk page. I endeavour to remind that civility is a requirement on Wikipedia, and your comments are also more likely to get a positive reception if you focus on the issue at hand and do not attempt to cast unfounded accusations as to the motives of others (something which is also true in the real world). Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I merely asked for clarification concerning your decision. I thought that the opinion of contributors who actually did research on the topic mattered as well what sources in English said about it. I see now, according to you, that none of that is important. But your tone is so hostile to me that I see that is pointless to continue arguing. --Lecen (talk) 03:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Lecen: Sorry you feel that way about it; in my mind your comment was a clear challenge of the close so I considered most appropriate to provide a detailed explanation and refutation. You might want to see Help:Wikipedia editing for researchers, scholars, and academics if you're in that situation. Also WP:EQUALITY. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I'll implement the RFC decision (Saturday, Oct 2), with hopes that Lecen will not revert my changes. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@GoodDay: You're free to take any action you feel is consistent with the outcome of the RfC. If Lecen reverts, I'll note that my talk page is not ANI 2.0 (and not only because I don't have the A bit) - try Drmies' instead. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Cool. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

RfC Closure atop

Hi. Thanks for the closure at Talk:P. V. Sindhu. It seems you used the normal closure instead of RfC closure in the DiscussionCloser. It has put {{atop}} and {{abot}} instead of {{closed rfc top}} and {{closed rfc bottom}}. Could you correct them? Thanks! — DaxServer (talk to me) 07:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@DaxServer: Both templates work, and I tend to use them indifferently. If you don't link {{atop}}, you're free to replace it with the corresponding closed rfc ones. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]


I wanted to apologize to you for going too far in my comment at AN/I regarding your use of the word "petty". In my frustrations with the incivility that takes place on those threads with reckless abandon I made a comment about a minor thing that could have been hurtful or maybe even puzzling as to my intent. I haven't returned to the thread so I don't know if anything further has been said but my intentions were sincere even if my approach was incorrect. It was unnecessary to comment the way I did or even to comment specifically on that at all. I wanted to apologize to you personally here. I respect you and your contributions to the encyclopedia and our collaborative effort. I am going there to strike the comment from my edit. I remain committed to bringing attention to the vital and important subject of civility in every aspect of this project and I admit I have a lot I can learn still about its application and how best to approach situations. Again, I sincerely apologize to you for my comment. --ARoseWolf 12:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@ARoseWolf: No offence given, none taken. I tend to be a bit blunt when there's something important which is inexplicably missing (which suggests that people are failing to see the forest for the trees; hence the need to point it out). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Thank you for the response and explanation. It was and is such a minor technicality and you were right for bringing that out. That was the main intent of what I was trying to say. Both you and Cullen were correct and this whole situation could be cleared up on the talk page and without all the uncivil remarks both editors made there. But that's neither here nor there. I appreciate your response and your acceptance of my apology. I struck the comment as inappropriate. --ARoseWolf 13:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

RfC closure 2021 Canadian federal election

There isn't one. A non-admin closed the existing one while the numbers weren't even close to all in and a lot of the support was provisional on the PPC holding its vote count above 5%. Far too early a closure and one partly to blame for the current mess. A new RfC can wait until all numbers are in. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 23:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@G. Timothy Walton: There is still an ongoing RfC (marked with the RfC template) about this exact issue. And, as you should be obviously aware, WP:5P5 is a fundamental principle and how close to an arbitrary number a party is to an informally agreed cut-off does not seem to be a convincing argument to most participants of said RfC who cite other more widely accepted principles: looks like you're in the minority on this one. I never said the RfC was closed; I said the discussion was duplicative of the existing RfC, which is correct. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
We're not referring to the same discussion. The one that actually had RfC in the title was closed early by a non-admin. The other flew under my radar as an RfC.
I have learnt what the Wikipedia definition of COI differs from my own. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 01:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Cwm Rhondda

You were too quick off the draw with this revert, which you made within a second of my edit. My edit summary indicated that I was about to modify the text, you should have given me the courtesy of waiting a minute or two to review my next edit. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:44, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@Verbcatcher: Your source is still inadequate; it has no mention of rugby. Please see WP:SYNTH; and do read WP:BURDEN since if you were going to add it within a minute or two; then you should have taken the time to do it properly and done it all at once. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]


Article watchlisted, to see if OP reinstates unsourced material... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:27, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wondering why RandomCanadian removed both Osibisa band member information (large section) and singles and EP information (complete section) when it all appeared previously correct?

Would suggest these are all added back in as not having it in place clearly detracts from the general information. McMalcolm (talk) 00:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • @McMalcolm: I don't know which article you're talking about. If I removed the information, it is probably because it failed to cite a reliable source. See WP:V. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]

It was removing the EP’s and singles information wholesale when much of this has been there for a long time (and was highly accurate) and other parts where I added information that are shown as actual releases on iTunes and many other platforms.

Likewise with band member information which was previously there and accurate if sometimes incomplete.

Just seemed bizarre frankly and I believe it should all be reinstated


Rob McMalcolm (talk) 00:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@McMalcolm: Found the article (that was a fair bit ago). I can now confirm that my initial answer (that the information was removed because no source was cited) was indeed the reason I removed this. See WP:Verifiability, not truth, and consider that Wikipedia is not a database and that information which does not have a reliable source to support it cannot be included, as I pointed out already, per WP:V. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Truly bizarre. RandomCanadian removed highly valid information sections. Clearly no real knowledge of this band and it’s music.

McMalcolm (talk) 01:25, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AfD close

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neek the Exotic - this seems like a WP:BADNAC#2 The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Such closes are better left to an administrator. It is what the AN was about. I was on the Keep side, but this was an overwhelming draftify or delete based on AfD participation. Lightburst (talk) 03:21, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Lightburst You just come off an AN thread which found I did nothing wrong, and you're back right here arguing that I'm wrong, again? I'm not going to do a comment-by-comment analysis of that discussion; but there was no clear consensus either that the subject failed GNG or that he met the relevant SNG and that the presence of at least some acceptable sources was enough (as also evidenced by previous relists, both by admins, 78.26 and filelakeshoe, who must have found as I have that there was no clear policy-based consensus at the time - by the way, if either of you feels I've overstepped here and wants to overrule my no consensus close; you're free to do so).
There was not enough convincing new participation since the previous relist (out of the three new comments, one is an unsupported assertion that "notability is borderline"; the last one ("weak keep") is pointing to the already discussed fact the subject's songs charted, without providing new reasoning; and the middle one isn't much more convincing, ending with a classic example of WP:NOEFFORT). None of these are enough to establish that there is now a consensus if there wasn't one a week ago, and a look at the previous arguments does not establish that either of the previous two made an error in judgement, it's unlikely there's one now. There's no credible way that this could have been closed with a positive result at this time, and relisting a third time did not appear warranted, so this was, in my honest opinion (reasonable people could potentially disagree) neither a close-call, nor controversial (closing as "no consensus" after prolonged but unclear discussion is not controversial). Now if your only objection to all of this is that I don't have the mop, that's not convincing, and more of an argument for me considering whether I should actually run for the darn thing - not that I'm particularly interested, but if it saves the trouble...
Of course, you're free to follow the standard process as suggested in the relevant sub-section of WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, although I'll point out that "Deletion review should not be used [...] to argue technicalities". The last time something like this happened, the nomination was speedily re-closed by an admin as, indeed, no consensus, so I wouldn't suggest repeating the exercise. Note that there is no prejudice against future re-nomination (as usual for no consensus closes), so if you come back to the article in a few weeks or months and notice that issues with it still have not been resolved, you're free to re-nominate it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Actually, I don't think this was a close call. A vast majority of participants !voted either "delete" or "draftify". There was one "keep" !vote and one "weak keep" (I'm ignoring the ridiculous "speedy close" !vote by Hullaballoo). As the creator was still working on this, I think the correct close should have been "draftify". I urge you to reconsider your close. --Randykitty (talk) 09:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I don't think a "no consensus" close was completely off. Two participants offered sources late on in the discussion (after all the "draftify" votes) and evaluation of these by other participants was minimal. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Randykitty: As you're also well aware, discussions are not votes, and a raw count is often unhelpful. I don't disagree that "draftify" is a valid outcome, but it certainly didn't achieve a consensus (being only mentioned by two early commentators), nor were the arguments in it's favour so overwhelmingly strong that they could override the more recent keep !votes (which do seem at least to contain one valid source towards GNG), and filelakeshoe's concise summary of the rest pretty much aligns with mine. It's a case where, clearly, reasonable editors could have come to different conclusions, but I don't think there was a clear consensus; and I don't think my close is unreasonable: the AfD was open for nearly a month and it certainly needed a close, one way or the other, and a "no consensus" now is not inconsistent with a "draftify" or "delete/redirect" in a few months if the underlying issues can't be fixed. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I'm going to go ahead and back out the close and draftify the article. There is a clear consensus that this should not presently exist as a mainspace article. BD2412 T 18:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@RandomCanadian: your work at AfD is very much appreciated, and I would do nothing to discourage your efforts there, but bear in mind that in discussions with close outcomes, the closer's view of the outcome might be expected to be shaded by the tools available to them to carry out the close. BD2412 T 18:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • @BD2412: I strongly disagree with your close and with your out of process behaviour (this should at least have gone to DRV - as evidenced by the contradictory reaction I'm getting, there are plenty who say the close was perfectly OK), and I feel there's sufficient justification here against your unilateral action or Lightburst's otherwise unfounded stalking of my AfD closes/relists, but sure, go ahead. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I am trying to mentor you here, not to sabotage you. I avoided explicitly invoking WP:BADNAC in the edit summary reverting your close. BD2412 T 19:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@BD2412: (you just rollbacked, which is not much better) I'm not accusing you of anything untoward, and of course I know that I can occasionally be wrong, I'm just annoyed that this was done out of process and, more importantly, unilaterally - among others, HighInBC was of the opinion that this was textbook no consensus. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I am here because I was pinged. I don't see this as out of process. WP:NAC warns about the chance that an admin may revert your close, and gives advice for if this happens. I did say that I did not see fault with the close but I also said another admin may feel differently. As for DRV, it is still available. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 00:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

October 2021

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The thread is named 2600:8804:6600:C4:9DD6:8ED8:6B65:A506's talk page. — Shibbolethink ( ) 21:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Gerda's October corner

October songs

Today: DYK #1700, and I uploaded more images, mostly blue and green, for hope. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Sorry, I don't understand any Dutch. Good plans for Buxtehude! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Maybe I should ask Drmies or Uncle G if they do (and if they have a passing interest for Baroque music: the Buxtehude in question [and the sources in Dutch] is currently at Draft:Wo ist doch mein Freund geblieben?#Recordings)? I remember correctly from some silly conversation on the Doctor's talk page. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Me? What? I listen to Radiohead. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Drmies: Wat dacht je van deze: User:Drmies/Stavoren lighthouse? What I was vaguely referring to ("silly conversation on the Doctor's talk page") was apparently, this, fwiw. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Gerda Arendt: - Do you have or think you can figure out access to this (Musik & Kirche)? PORTRÄT: Ein katholischer Schweizer an Bachs Platz. Andreas Reize – der neue Thomaskantor would seem (just from the title) like a great piece to add both to de:Andreas Reize and to an eventual article here. There's also the official news from Leipzig, which I link in the edit summary at Thomaskantor. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Sorry, not that one. I found this NZZ, and yes, he should have an article. I'll do it if nobody beats me to it, but not on Sunday, - hymns and churches on Sunday ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
He has an article, had to do it myself. I tried to ping you to User talk:John Cline, kindly look. 'tis the season. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:15, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Thank you for fixing the hymns. See my talk (to not repeat) for two so-called community bans from 13 Oct to 16 Oct, similar and different. Both had in common that I was away, so felt extra helpless. The first (2012) received at least a few hundred comments. I then debated with myself if I could remain in a community which did such a horrible thing, but decided (and I hope forever) that I'd better continued the work of the banned. "... suche Freud", start in church. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Gerda Arendt: Thanks for your comments below. Sorry about your feeling powerless, but then again I think that while there's a fair few things we take too much time to act upon, or just do wrong, the community usually is quite good enough at recognising when someone has overstayed their welcome. I'll spare you thoughts on LA's comments and actions, my posts at AN are usually brief (voluntarily so: there's no need for unnecessary drama) and self-explanatory. As for something nicer, did you know... that I had the pleasant opportunity to play on this instrument (albeit briefly, after a concert by someone else) today! No recording, but I did take a fair picture of the thing. Laudate Dominum in choro et organo (inscription from the facade of the instrument): indeed. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Glad to hear that you found Freud playing that instrument. I miss Br'er Rabbit, daily, after 9 years. The design of the image frame (above), and of the precious award, is his. You may have noticed that I quote him, and a line from the ban thread, in my editnotce. I let him go, of course, - he wanted it so, provoking that ban and fixing it, which still makes me smile. - But: when I can't prevent loss of productivity and helpfulness, I feel helpless. Comments in the AN threads were horrible but imagine the whole thread had not happened, and the "perennial gang" could still produce articles such Karl-Heinz Petzinka. - As said on my talk: sometimes I read my editnotice loud to myself. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Today: see yourself, read about a hymn praying to not be on earth in vain, about a comics artist whose characters have character (another collaboration of the "perennial gang", broken by one of us banned), and in memory of the last prima donna assoluta, Edita Gruberová. I had to go to two grave sites last week, one who died now, one who died 10 years ago, so standing upright and in black seems appropriate. More colours - but subdued - can be had on hikes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Learning English

Meinen Jesum laß ich nicht: To my understanding, lassen can be short for verlassen (leave) and loslassen (let go), and I'm not at all convinced that "verlassen" is "better" here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@Gerda Arendt: I always understood it as implying (beyond the mere literal meaning) something similar to the kind of idea expressed in Abide with me (or the closely related "Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent." [Lk 24:29]) - i.e., something deeper than merely "let go", which feels rather distant and impersonal (you let go of an employee, or of an old grudge [1]: completely the wrong register to describe what the hymn's writer must have considered as something far closer). Hence "leave". FWIW, I'll note that other online translations are divided (Dellal has "let go"; but Ambrose has "leave", as does Browne). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
What then is "loslassen" in English, the concept of not possessing another person, but let the other do what's best for the other, such as a child? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Same or different for "grudge": to let go of a grudge can be especially challenging. As said before, it took me years to let go of the grudge I felt towards people responsible for letting Br'er Rabbit go (although he wanted to go, almost forced teh community to ban him). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
(edit conflict) That's where you see that translation is not an exact science. If I take the first meaning from Duden ("nicht mehr festhalten"), that would clearly be "let go". The description you give doesn't seem to have a single-word-equivalent, or at least none that pops to mind (maybe, in the meaning of allowing somebody to enjoy their own free will, "emancipate", although that word is usually employed in legal or otherwise more forceful contexts). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Instead of debating nuances of translation, though, it might be better just listening to some Bach? Like this little gem from the Thomaner. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Thank you for the gem from start to finish. - I'm just trying to learn. I visited two graveyards past week, having to sing for a choir colleague (about my age) who had planned to sing last Sunday but died unexpectedly, and the grave of a close family member (don't want to out more ...) who died 10 years ago, and relation was frozen until yesterday when an old grudge was overcome a tiny bit. The thought of having to let go people is close, and I want to clarify if my description of it is wrong, or could be improved. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

ps: ... thinking of Ich lasse dich nicht which doesn't say "I don't leave you", but "I shall not let you go unless ...". Farewell song for RexxS. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

You are both right. You have highlighted the difference between translation and interpretation. It is more than bare words. A gesture or facial expression can create nuance or negate the literal meaning. In court, we use interpreters, not translaters. The meaning of words depends on context – not necessarily what a dictionary (even a cross language one) says. What we have here is a failure to communicate.
“A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged; it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in colour and content according to the circumstances and time in which it is used.” ― Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Towne v Eisner, 245 U.S. 418 425 (1918), quoted in Roberts, Harold S. (1986) [1966] Roberts’ Dictionary of Industrial Relations 3rd ed. (Washington D.C.; Bureau of National Affairs), p. vii. ISBN 0-87179-488-8. 7&6=thirteen () 14:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Sorry, I saw your Buxtehude ping, but have no access to the book. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]

School of Thought

Good day! I saw that you removed the hat note from school of thought. Ded plans to release School of Thought in the next few days. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@Jax 0677: So you're telling me it's not even released? I don't think the hatnote is useful, not only because the redirect doesn't exist, but because someone looking for "school of thought" is extremely unlikely to actually be looking for an unreleased album by some random band from Arizona (if they are, they're A) more likely to just look for the band and B) probably on the wrong website). The hatnote therefore serves no useful purpose, AFAICS. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
There are quite a few references for this album. I do not think that it is harmful to have the hat note at School of thought. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Jax 0677 WP:WTAF. And also, please disclose if there's any undisclosed reasons why you started the related AfD. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
WP:WTAF says "Editors are encouraged to write the article on a given subject BEFORE adding a link to the article in list pages, disambiguation pages, See also sections, or templates". This means that Ded (band) (not necessarily School of Thought) should be written before the hatnote is made. The school of thought article had been unsourced for years. Why is it harmful to have such a hat note at School of Thought? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Jax 0677 "The article had been unsourced for years." - WP:BEFORE and WP:SURMOUNTABLE explicitly require that you make a reasonable attempt at looking for sources (and given this is such a well known concept, it really baffles me why this was even nominated). As to the question, because a hatnote for an unreleased album is borderline promotional; and there shouldn't be hatnotes when the relevant title doesn't exist. If there's enough significant independent reliable sources which cover the album (the cited source in the band's page does not appear significant (it's one album listed amongst many) nor independent (much of the information about the album is directly quoted from one of its members), then write the article first, as already said. (edit conflict) re. legalese interpretation of WTAF: a hatnote is a template; and additionally the purpose of hatnotes is when there are similarly titled pages which could reasonably have been what the reader was looking for (such as Regent Square (London) and Regent Square (Pittsburgh)). Given that School of Thought (album) does not exist as anything but a redirect (not an article), and is unlikely to warrant an article at this point, then I don't see any justification for the hatnote other than what appears like borderline promotion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
No undisclosed reasons. What are your "latest concerns about this"? I might post to WikiProject rock music if we can not resolve this here. The help desk was for clarification on next steps, not for forum shopping, and I did not get pinged during the help desk reply. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Jax 0677: See the post immediately before yours, above. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
My prod was reverted, so I did AFD. If you have a specific question, please post an itemized list, and I will consider answering specific questions. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Since you're making this harder than it should be:
  1. Hatnotes should be used for when there is a reasonable case that readers looking for 'something' will end up at a very similarly titled page about 'something else' (the example I was giving with Regent Square (London) and Regent Square (Pittsburgh).
    1. Because the album hasn't been released yet, it is unlikely that many people will actually be looking for it
    2. Because the album doesn't have an article of its own, and is barely mentioned as an item in a list, the hatnote serves no useful purpose to our readers
  2. Since the album hasn't been released yet, and since there does not appear to be sufficient sourcing at this time to warrant an article (see WP:GNG), then:
    1. Because "school of thought" is a very common concept (it is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC), putting a link to an unreleased album by some average North American band seems like undue promotion (and also WP:BIAS, fwiw)
    2. You should wait until you can find enough satisfying sources to write the article first; and then maybe consider creating School of thought (disambiguation), which likely also has a few other valid entries (for example, Schools of economic thought), and would be a far more appropriate hatnote target.
If you can't reasonably address these arguments for why there shouldn't be a hatnote, then the outcome in light of the way things are usually done out here is rather clear. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
1. I think that readers might search for "School of Thought" when seeking the album, but if you disagree, that is OK.
1.1 I disagree, but OK.
1.2 I disagree, but OK.
2. I disagree, but OK.
2.1 I disagree, but OK.
2.2 I disagree, but OK. I might create School of thought (disambiguation). --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
So Jax 0677 is asking for a hatnote directing to an article that doesn't exist (and about an album that doesn't yet exist). I'm glad that's clear. Maproom (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Yeah.... this certainly seems like a cut and dry unnecessary hatnote. If anything, there should be a DAB page, and a hatnote to the DAB at the top of school of thought (which is clearly the WP:PTOPIC. Not a hatnote to the album, which is much too WP:PROMOTION-al — Shibbolethink ( ) 19:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I do not know how to fix the numbering, so I will allow you to please do so. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Funny close

Hi RandomCanadian, I love your "Winter in Canada usually lasts long enough without encouragement" close (diff). That was quite a humorous close and gave me a good chuckle.   --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@TheSandDoctor: Thanks, I usually try to keep things more relaxed if it can be helped; and well, joking about beautiful Canadian winters is a classic. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Very true. Thankfully, I am in an area where it doesn't get as bad as other parts. That said, we sometimes drive better in the snow and don't cause 30+ car pile ups  . I'll probably end up moving somewhere with worse winters at some point in my life in my field, but I enjoy them being somewhat milder...I just really, really wish we had a touch more snow. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Reverts of IPv6

Hi, Randy. Re your reverts of 2A02:A210:BA9:9080:6839:E95D:3C92:F36C: thank you, and if you're interested in their other adventures, compare this page. Bishonen | tålk 17:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC).[]

@Bishonen: Thanks (first time someone's called me Randy - they usually just stick with RC. fwiw, my name's Alex). I had noticed the talk page of the other IP by looking at the /64 range, but in practical terms (since I'd already reverted the offending edits; and since I'm not an admin [btw, you think I stand any realistic chance at RfA?] so nothing else I could do), that was of rather limited interest (insofar that knowing the IP had been disruptive prior to the newest edits wasn't particularly surprising). You might also want to take the revdel out for these two revisions here, since they're obvious excessive quotations from their copyrighted sources. Thanks again, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Haha, hi Alex. Right, I've revdel'd the copyvios. Spontaneously, I'm glad to hear you're considering standing for adminship. But I myself was adminned in another geological era, and have never nominated anybody or generally involved myself much in that process since then, so I hesitate to advise anybody. I suggest you inquire of one of the frequent nominators. Or just wait a day or two, because now that the question is out there in public, helpful comments may well arrive from your talkpage stalkers. Bishonen | tålk 05:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC).[]

Socratic Barnstar for you!

  The Socratic Barnstar
For your eloquent arguments for the deletion of List of oldest living state leaders. Bravo! -PerpetuityGrat (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]


Resolved; I'll have to assume the other book is correct if there's no proof of the contrary, unlike with this one. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi RandomCanadian I am confused on what you consider as being incorrect information I added. The references are from the Sabians article. The book by Sinasi Gunduz names the Mandaeans as most likely to be the Sabians of the Quran which is the reference I added. The other reference was to show that Manichaeans were known as Zindiqs during the Abbasid era and not the Sabians. I don't understand why you reverted referenced material. Mcvti (talk) 22:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@Mctvi: Oh, so it was missing a few letters. You wrote "Mandaeans", which did not appear in Zaman's book (the Google preview includes pages 63 to 65)... Nor does the term "people of the book" appear, so it would appear like inappropriate WP:SYNTH to include it on that article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Still confused on what you are stating. The reference clearly states that the Mandaeans are most likely the Sabians i.e People of the Book in the Quran. By reference, I mean Sinasi Gunduz. I wiil edit again using only Gunduz as the reference, since Zaman is causing the problem. Hope that solves the problem. Mcvti (talk) 23:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:SillyWizard Wild.jpg

Thanks for your help. The reason why I wanted the image to be deleted is because I really screw up the license, not to mention that it's a CD cover (not a poster, as I initially indicated). How would a bot change that?--Filmomusico (talk) 05:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Firehose of propaganda

Your closure as 'speedy keep" of the deletion discussion of "Firehose of propaganda" does not meet the criteria set in Wikipedia:Speedy keep. For information, you closed it within 24 hours of its opening after five editors (including one who was a contributor) voted to keep. OTOH, two editors on the talk page had challenged the existence of the article.

Quite often in AfDs the first respondents are people who have contributed to or follow the article.

While the initial respondents may be representative of future ones, we can't tell unless other editors have an opportunity to reply.

I suggest therefore that you re-open the AfD.

TFD (talk) 01:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • @The Four Deuces: WP:SNOW is a valid criterion, and CSK no. 3 is also valid criterion; and whether the editors who contributed to the AfD are contributors to the article (one would expect there to be some) is not a valid concern. I did not close it within 24 hours of its opening (the AfD was created at 21:12, 8 October; I closed it at 14:17, 11 October, which is nearly three full days). Looking at the article talk page is not the duty of someone closing an AfD, and complaints that some term is "propaganda" based on some political rhetoric involving American politicians and intelligence agencies don't seem valid either; and sources in the article and in the AfD clearly show that significant, central aspects of the nomination, such as "it has not been picked up in academic sources or reported in news articles and has not entered public discourse" (used to support the nominator's claimed lack of notability), are clearly erroneous (those sources were present in the article before it was nominated!!!). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    If you're objecting to me putting "speedy" in front of the keep, that doesn't seem like a reason to re-open the AfD. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Citing scores

Hi RC. I noticed you tweaked a score I created because I hadn't cited the source. I have no problem with that, but should I have cited it? And if so, could you point to me to an example that includes this citation so I can see how it was done? (I swear I copied it note-for-note from an online source, but of course I can't find it today.)

P.S. I'd be interested in following/helping with a Hymnology task force, if you've given any more thought to that idea. Hoof Hearted (talk) 13:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@Hoof Hearted: For an ex. see the relevant section of Ye Choirs of New Jerusalem. Re. task force I don't have too much spare time on my hands at the moment, but feel free to use the ressources listed there: there's a lot of articles about hymns which are not very impressive... Re. the tweaking: I only altered a very few things which sounded odd to me (hymnal harmonisations don't often have quite the same elegant charm as Bach chorales, and in this case the few fixes where trivial). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Hoof Hearted: Another thing you can do, especially if you are decent enough with Lilypond, is head over to The English Hymnal (1906) on Wikisource, and transcribe the tunes (I have a few examples in my sandbox over there). They can then often be copied over here on the relevant articles, ex. this which I've managed to use not once but twice. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Wow, thanks for the suggestion! Down the rabbit hole I go! Hoof Hearted (talk) 17:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

DYK for Düben collection

 On 15 October 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Düben collection, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Düben collection contains the sole surviving copies of many works by Dieterich Buxtehude? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Düben collection. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Düben collection), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 6#Lauren King

If you close an RfD as retarget, you have to check for links that need to be fixed. I removed the link from the old target, but there are still five more. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 03:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@Tavix:   Done RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Thank you! -- Tavix (talk) 04:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]


This won't work. If you muck up a ping you have to make a new post with a new signature. See Help:Notifications#Mentions. SpinningSpark 18:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@Spinningspark: Thanks, I already know, just did it rapidly and forgot the essential part (I usually just link the user in the edit summary), ex. [2]. Anyway, since they appear to have the page watchlisted (their initial comment was unprompted), doesn't look too important. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]

DYK nomination of In Freundschaft

  Hello! Your submission of In Freundschaft at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! CMD (talk) 15:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Notability discussion

Regarding this edit: perhaps you could consider a less confrontational alternative to "if you could count correctly"? I feel that a more moderate tone would assist in making others more receptive to your argument. Thanks. isaacl (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Upside down fermata in O Come Emmanuel

Thanks for this. I got a similar result coding it another way, but couldn't get the upside down fermata to be full-sized. The \once \normalsize settings didn't seem to help (it appears that strictly effects note head size), so I thought a full-sized, upright fermata was the lesser of two evils. If it's alright with you the way it is, it's alright with me. Hoof Hearted (talk) 12:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]

List of minority governors and lieutenant governors in the United States

Hello, you proposed the deletion of this page but I believe the page called List of minority attorneys general in the United States would face basically the same issues so I was wondering if you'll propose that one for deletion too so that a unified discussion can be held rather than two discussions on a pair of substantially similar articles. --Killuminator (talk) 01:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • @Killuminator: It's too late to do that (given the first nomination has been open for a while: it just shows how many of this kind of silly list there are); although there's nothing that prevents you opening a new discussion for the specific one you identify. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]

DR Nobel university list

Please accept this as a good faith comment: while you may be passionate about this particular nomination and review, it's not necessary for you to respond to almost every single contribution, your views are quite clear. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@Goldsztajn: I'm not so passionate and more simply astonished by the lack of logic of some of the arguments (obvious red herrings are particularly ridiculous)... I've tried to keep my comments brief and to the point. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I find the entire delete argument utterly flummoxing as all I see is a content dispute. Asserting our *levels* of disagreement only pushes the noise-to-signal ratio in the wrong direction. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Sudrian Heraldry

The actual source was Awdry's own documentation, as maintained and displayed by the Narrow Gauge Railway Museum. I don't know how else to cite it. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 23:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Scientific Jargon and Review

In regards to your reverting of my edit. Who ever officially says that it's not appropriate to say 96.1% (identical)? Is there a page you can direct me to, that shows that rule or just your opinion? To my understanding, it's not unheard of for real scientists in a well respected Nature Journal to go write that BANAL-52 is 96.8% identical to SARS-CoV-2. And people instinctively know what it means too. That SARS-CoV-2 and BANAL-52 is identical in 96.8% of their nucleotide sequence. Not similar (which is less accurate) but (completely identical) in 96.8 percent of their nucleotide identity. Nobody says it's 100 percent identical but only 96.8 percent of the sequence is identical.

Last year, researchers described another close relative of SARS-CoV-2, called RaTG13, which was found in bats in Yunnan5. It is 96.1% identical to SARS-CoV-2 overall and the two viruses probably shared a common ancestor 40–70 years ago6. BANAL-52 is 96.8% identical to SARS-CoV-2, says Eloit — and all three newly discovered viruses have individual sections that are more similar to sections of SARS-CoV-2 than seen in any other viruses.

Also RaTG13 is (96.1 percent), not 96 percent. Is there a source that asserts 96 instead of 96.1 because both my given sources asserts (96.1)? And I highly doubt those scientists can get the BANAL-52 figures wrong. It's not even a herculean effort to compute and calculate a similarity percentage in sequencing in this day and age. So it seems borderline arbitrary to wait for a review Why even allow the article to mention BANAL-52 if you think those scientists are shoddy because they lack a review? Nvtuil (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@Nvtuil: 96% is clearly the very basic concept of rounding being applied. As for waiting for a review, yes, WP:PREPRINTS is rather clear enough, and it has nothing to do with the scientists being shoddy or not. Serious scientific work is done by people with serious scientific formation and skills, and then reviewed by their peers, and we, anonymous Wikipedia editors, do not have any valid qualification to judge whether a random preprint is an acceptable source or not. There is WP:NORUSH, so we can let the scientific process take its time and the results be reviewed by qualified people. Wikipedia is not at the cutting edge of research, but an encyclopedia, and usually, following the science instead of being at the leading edge of it is where an encyclopedia should be. This applies to COVID as it applies to other areas of science. It's been barely more than a month since this was announced: even accounting for a possibly accelerated review given the impact of this discovery, that is still a short time, so there's not much we can do but wait. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ocer Campion Jesuit College (2nd nomination)

Hi, I disagree with your close here. Mainly because no consensus closes are usually determined by admin as they are not clear enough for a WP:NAC close. Also there were six keep votes as opposed to 5 delete or redirect, that doesn't mean it should be kept but that the close is not obvious enough for an NAC closure. Also your summary was expressing too much of your own view on the notability of the article and the discussion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@Atlantic306: I don't see what is "no consensus" here, and whether closes are "obvious enough" is not something based on vote counts. Of the 6 keep "votes", 4 of them were basically "this school exists", which, as pointed out by those arguing against keeping the article in its previous form, is not a convincing argument (in line with broader community consensus, expressed at the 2017 RfC: an RfC which was closed by @Tazerdadog, Primefac, The Wordsmith, and Someguy1221:) I disregarded those (as any reasonable closer would), since broader community consensus takes precedence over a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, and since merely claiming the existence of something is otherwise a poor argument to make at AfD, double so when there's an RfC explicitly telling that in this context, it is not enough. Neither of these things is "my own view on the notability of the article": they're both well established and usually followed guidelines, and I saw no compelling reason [nor was one offered by any participant of the AfD] to ignore them. That leaves two. Your comment essentially asserts that the school is notable "because of sources and of references regarding school results", but it doesn't provide any example of a source which meets GNG. The other, Pjposullivan's, argues, a bit more convincingly, that the sources are sufficient to show notability, but here their arguments are subsequently rebutted by others, and while there might be some place for reasonable disagreement over whether the sources were sufficient, the arguments that the sources were not sufficient were both more numerous and better argued in terms of policy, while those to the opposite were clearly in the minority, and thus there's IMHO a clear enough consensus that the article should not be kept, and because a reasonable alternative to deletion was proposed, that obviously was the preferred outcome. As for your argument that this was best left to an admin, I'll note that admins don't have superpowers in closing discussions; and, other than that, since the close was not particularly controversial (because the keep arguments were overall poor), and since I actually have experience doing this and since this does not require admin tools to implement, there's little reason to have left this to an admin when the outcome was obvious, and admins have better stuff to do anyways, like dealing with LTAs or vandals (caught both of those today: maybe I should consider...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Ah yes it was a redirect not a no consensus. That means it was a worse NAC closure because opinion was divided and in those circumstances an admin close is nearly always preferred. NACs should not need a long explanation as they should be very obvious, if I hadn't voted I would have left the close for an admin, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 02:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Atlantic306: One or two sentence is definitely not a "long explanation" (the fact I've entertained you with a long explanation here, to illustrate my thought process, which is much longer than merely the short fragment I wrote at the AfD, does not change the fact the close was obvious), and "opinion was divided" (in other terms: "this was controversial") is not, as I was saying, correct, because consensus is not determined through mechanical counting. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]

User:Tranniemal Trill Bundi

Hello, RandomCanadian,

Thanks for tagging this page for deletion but, please, any time you tag a page for any type of deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/RFD/TFD/etc.), you need to post a notification on the talk page of the page creator. I see you use Twinkle, which is great, so please go into your Preferences and make sure "Notify page creator" is checked and that all types of CSD criteria are checked off as well. Then, Twinkle will post these messages for you which makes things easy. Thanks again. Liz Read! Talk! 04:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@Liz: I figured that A) this user is long inactive B) they probably have not adjusted their notification settings to not get an email (which is enabled AFAICS) when their talk page gets edited and C) those edits from 3 years ago suggest something along the line of NOTHERE (or at least, making a U5 user page does) [see also their commons userpage]. I figured this is one of those cases where notifying the person is not likely to improve the encyclopedia in any way, so I kindly abstained (it's also because I originally thought Special:Contributions/Jeanette_Jodeette might be an LTA [hence obviously, no notification], based on something on their user page, but I could only find this, and afterwards I reconsidered and figured they're likely just some dumb teenager). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]