User talk:FOARP/Archives/2021/December

I tried to stop the flood of non-notable GEO articles in 2009
For what it's worth, I tried to stop the high-speed generation of non-notable GEO articles back in 2009. I got accused of being a vandal, and was warned to stop.

I very much agree that we should not auto-generate GEO articles based on databases, but on solid secondary sources. You're right, AfD isn't the right mechanism to cope with non-notable floods. Maybe we need to expand the GNIS cleanup task force into a broader Geo notability WikiProject or task force? — hike395 (talk) 14:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * - Sigh. I see you had a run in with Carlos. I wrote WP:GRAVEDANCING so I'm not going to break it, but that particularly guy didn't quit this project for no reason. I see they were saying that whole "Wikipedia is a gazetteer, see WP:5P" thing as well - the term "gazetteer" was added to WP:5P in an undiscussed bold edit but from the way people cited it you'd think it had been endorsed in a 200-vote RFC. From then until it was finally removed a few weeks ago no-one was ever able to give a good reason why it was included there beyond "we want to define 'encyclopaedia' broadly", which is great, but not a good reason to call out gazetteers specifically. Especially when they are also an example of Wikipedia is not. It wasn't ever clear what it was actually supposed to mean.
 * I think some kind of project is needed for a full GEO clean-up, but before that even happens we need to lay the ground-work for it. That means making it clear that the sourcing is no good - Dlthewave did a great job getting GNIS deprecated as a source for location-type and I'm trying to do the same with the discussion on GEONet Names Server that is also up at RSN right now. What I'm trying to do is push things to the point where people will accept that these thousands of stubs that were created at a rate often of 2-3 a minute and not improved since are basically  not articles  - that is there isn't even something to work on in the article, they might as well not be there.
 * The idea that we have to perform a kind of super-WP:BEFORE on a massive set of articles that were created with no care whatsoever, and that no-one ever bothered to confirm were notable in the first place, and which have not been improved since they were created a decade+ ago, is a total non-starter and will make any clean-up tedious and laborious in the extreme. We need to get past that to the point where people will accept bulk-deletion. FOARP (talk) 14:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * One of the possibilities I've mused about before is to just redirect all these micro-stubs to various lists of populated places by region. There would probably need to be an authorising rfc in advance to avoid complaints but that would at least reduce the need for bulk-afds. There would still be the issue that some of these places are the phantom result of database errors so there would still be a downstream problem with the need to send numerous R with history types to rfd as their entries get removed from lists, but I do think it simplifies clean-up somewhat. Regards, 95.71.35.111 (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with IP editor: we had consensus to merge locality microstubs into list articles back in 2009 (see link above). I don't think we need to go through mass deletion, just mass merging. And, per WP:MERGE, that appears to be much easier and more acceptable to the community. If I could make a suggestion: I think that's how we should handle the microstub mountain articles, too. Would you like me to make that suggestion to Ron? — hike395 (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Speaking only for myself here, redirecting is probably a good idea for any microstubs that have no information that couldn't be in a list, and I think WP:NOPAGE firmly supports this line of thinking. There may be edge cases where there's a bit of well-sourced prose that's been added that will have have to be analysed on a case-by-case basis, but those are probably few in number compared to the total. Regards, 95.71.35.111 (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I an entirely agree that this is a better solution that allowing these stubs to continue being created. However, we really have to stop them at source, which means being clear that further such articles are not appropriate. I think ultimately we need something at WP:NOT saying that Wikipedia is not a gazetteer, possibly under WP:NOTDIRECTORY, since ultimately that's what a gazetteer is - the distinction is also similar to that between a dictionary listing and an article that includes some minimal additional content beyond merely a definition of the term. This of course does not exclude articles that go beyond a bare gazetteer listing. FOARP (talk) 08:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree, and it might be best if worded more generally to cover stuff that consists of nothing but or anything in whatever topic area designed along those lines. Regards, 188.168.28.98 (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Keyword search for geostubs
I just remembered User:Hog Farm/Kentucky, which me and partially went through last spring. Basically, it's a keyword search for certain items that frequently have false positive community stubs. A fair number of these are okay (the two of us managed to get Wises Landing, Kentucky from a single sentence to its current state), but I've found that places with things like "Mill" or "Store" or "Ford" are more likely to be false positives (and "Addition", "Acres", and sometimes "Heights" are often red flags it may be a NN subdivision/housing development). Considering making another run or two like this to try to flag up some false positives, any suggestions on which state(s) to start with? Hog Farm Talk 18:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ran User:Hog Farm/ND keywords as another sample. Hog Farm Talk 19:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Non-admin close of highly contentious RM discussion
Your comment "I must say I found the strength of feeling related to what is facially a very minor change here somewhat surprising" shows that you have no idea what the stakes are in discussions like the one you just closed at Talk:New York City Subway. This is the kind of thing that non-admins are generally advised to leave to more experienced admins. You might be wise to revert your close and let an admin have it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Dicklyon, I of course apologise if what I said diminished the importance of what was being discussed, and will happily strike that part of my close if you wish. Do you really think the result of the RM would be any different if the had been an admin close, though? FOARP (talk) 06:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's hard to say what an admin would have closed with. Likely "no consensus to move", but less likely "consensus to not move".  You should really revert the whole close since you're not in tune with the issues. Dicklyon (talk) 06:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I honestly don’t see the point in reopening if, as you say, it won’t ultimately result in a different outcome. It is true to say that I was not WP:Involved in the question of whether the “S” in that particular title should be changed to a lower-case letter. FOARP (talk) 06:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The point is to let an admin who is familiar with such things assess the arguments, whether that results in a different outcome or not. It might.  Dicklyon (talk) 14:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we might logically say that whether or not a capital "S" is used in a particular title, is not actually "likely to be controversial". It in fact ought to be a matter of quite low stakes, that people can discuss calmly, which was the spirit of my final comment in the close.
 * Admittedly we are the community that made world-wide news arguing about whether an "I" should be capitalised, but you should not expect that kind of controversy to arise as a matter of course. We should always bear in mind that, per WP:RMNAC, "the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is never sufficient reason to reverse a closure ... any experienced and uninvolved editor in good standing may close any RM debate" (emphasis added). FOARP (talk) 16:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The very fact that you think 'whether or not a capital "S" is used in a particular title, is not actually "likely to be controversial"' indicates you have insufficient experience with MoS/RM matters and their closure. Style matters, especially capitalization ones, are frequently controversial to a surprising degree. The MoS is  for a reason, and has been the subject of more ArbCom cases than I care to count.  In this case you are clearly unfamilar with the subject and the contentious history behind it, in which railfans/trainspotters have been rampantly over-capitalizing everything to do with rail transport.  It has taken years to clean this up, and your close, which should have been "no consensus to move" at worst, goes against the grain (is not WP:CONSISTENT with) a long history of lower-casing RM results.  Consensus for "Not moved" is simply an error, as there is too much move support (over-capitalization opposition) with too good a policy and sourcing basis, for a finding of affirmative consensus to keep "S" (the arguments for doing so were mostly specious emotion and WP:Specialized-style fallacy.  At bare minimum you should change the close to no consensus, if not just self-revert it and leave it to an experience RM admin.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Really?! Griping over whether a move closed as not moved or no consensus? We're not a bureaucracy, it makes no difference; no one is going to pore over your rm stats the way they do afd stats, and the afd stats stuff is stupid anyway. Sure per WP:ACD discussions between 30% and 70% usually close nocon, but at 13 oppose 6 support 3 other (and yes I know theses are !votes) it's borderline, closer weighted opposes very slightly more, so what? And citing an essay WP:Specialized-style fallacy which, as pointed out, has little consensus behind it to brow-beat someone? Go fix some typos, do some npp, help some xfds find consensus or hell go write a GA, but WP:BLUDGEONING your fellow volunteers into submission over a close wording that has no practical difference and involves pure style trivia is not productive. Regards, 185.233.193.8 (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I just looked into this a little more. The claim that there is a long-history of this is pure BS. Talk:Metro_Manila_Subway was linked to in the very RM your contesting and not moved. But just to be sure I dug in a bit more. Talk:Crisis_of_the_Third_Century not moved; Talk:Four_Go_houses moved to uppercase (equally stupid as arguing over down casing, but still contra your claim). Talk:Fermat%27s_Last_Theorem not moved. Talk:Major_Arcana no consensus. Now my regexfoo for searching ain't great but AFAICT these discussion are just as likely to end with uppercasing as with lowercasing. If your going to brow-beat someone at least take the time to check your facts. And yes I'm ds/aware on this so if you don't like what I have to say feel free to file an WP:AE. I'll actually try my best to show up no matter how many times my IP changes; we can always use hashes to verify my identity if required. Regards, 185.233.193.8 (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, all of those were nacs. Time for you and dl to drop the WP:STICK. Regards, 185.233.193.8 (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The assertion that "railfans/trainspotters have been rampantly over-capitalizing everything to do with rail transport." rather betrays an adversarial attitude that is completely inappropriate to discussions like this. Every single RM related to capitalisation of rail transport articles I've been involved with has been argued based on how the topic in question (rather than anything that happens to have a similar name, confusing naming in this regard is rather common in the topic area) is treated in reliable sources. I know I'm not neutral in the specific dispute, but I thought FOARP's summary was a good summing up of a discussion which was certainly longer than it could have been. Thryduulf (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your support guys. One thing I’ve discovered closing RMs is you have to have a thick skin. I think part of the reason why there’s not enough people doing it is partly because of this.
 * My offer to strike the last sentence stands but I still don’t see what meaningfully could be achieved by relisting. As Dicklyon said above, a result in favour of moving was not on the cards. FOARP (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I think it should probably be relisted, under the circumstances. Tony (talk)  21:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I can’t relist anything without concrete reasons to do so. These have to be beyond “it was contentious”. FOARP (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * What would you expect that to accomplish anyway. It was already relisted and attracted exactly one additional participant,, who cited 's reasoning thus further tilting things toward oppose. It was open for more than a month with more than two weeks since the last new participant, and no new comments whatsoever for 6 days. Sure the discussion had steadily trended more toward oppose over time, but there's no point in letting stuff like that stay open. The fact that it was right around the 70/30 border between not moved and no consensus is insufficient reason to leave open indefinately. Regards, 185.233.193.8 (talk) 21:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And because I can't seem to prioritise properly I actually looked at that discussion again. The last few days was just a bit of sniping back and forth after and  became frustrated with some of the proposer's actions, substantial discussion had died out even earlier. This actually should've been closed a week ago, but wasn't because we don't have enough closers due to pointless time-wasting complaints like this. Also this entire thing is literally why people make fun of Wikipedia. The fact that the article is capped at Into instead of into has made literally no difference to anything else, despite the extreme contentiousness of that discussion. If this is some kind of performance art, then haha you got me but now it's time to stop. Regards, 185.233.193.8 (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It would not accomplish anything further to relist the discussion. Just because a non-admin closed a contentious RM doesn't mean it gets relisted, it means an admin will re-close it with almost exactly the same result.For what it's worth, FOARP did the right thing in his decision, i.e. There is at least no consensus to move here, and I would say a clear consensus against moving. It is either not moved due to a lack of consensus, or it is not moved because there is a consensus specifically not to move it. What is inappropriate, however, is to badger him on his talk page after he did what an admin would've done with or without his input. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As one of the evil "railfans/trainspotters", relisting this would be a massive waste of time. I didn't participate in the discussion because I thought it was stupid and, again, a waste of time. Why do we even care about the capitalization of 1 letter? This close was appropriate, and the attacks on FOARP's competence wholly uncalled for. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Opened move review
Since you're not willing to take it back, we'll need to have it reviewed: Move_review/Log/2021 November. Dicklyon (talk) 04:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Really?! Did you even read the replies by, , , and . I just can't make heads or tails of this, we're here to build an encyclopedia, not play procedural games for their own sake. And take back what exactly anyway? The entire close? If you still think a relist would result in appropriate use of editor time I don't know what to tell you. Regards, 79.126.122.14 (talk) 04:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I did read those, thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 05:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * that doesn't explain why you placed so much emphasis on the nac, after having it quoted to you why that doesn't matter. And a better approach would have added a message that at least said something along the lines of A really polite approach would engage directly with the points offered. All that said, it seems that I was once again wrong to bet against Wikipedia bureaucracy, three times in a week I've been burned, you think I would've learned a long time ago. And if I'm going to be honest with myself I've also become more bureaucratic over the years. I still think you should have at least made it more clear that you took the responses onboard, but I'm not going to brow-beat you over it, just something to think about next time. Regards, 188.168.28.98 (talk) 13:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The NAC is not the point, and I'm not putting "so much emphasis" on it. The point is that closer is inexperienced and unfamiliar with the serious issues he jumped into, and closed based primarily on the numbers, giving little weight to policy and guidelines (and apparently inventing some new interpretation of commonname in the process).  If he had said just no consensus to move, we wouldn't be having this argument, but by supervoting and claiming a consensus to not move, he leaves a bad message.  Dicklyon (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Dicklyon, please put any further comments about this on the MRV you have opened. I understand you're angry here, but these comments are not productive. FOARP (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * then why bring it up at all? You could have just as easily omitted it, and yet you chose to open your review with Non-admin. In writing either a plea in project-space or an article in main-space you should try to give the basics up-front and directly. I actually believe your case would read stronger if you stuck the first two words from it. If he had said just no consensus to move, we wouldn't be having this argument I can't believe you wrote that, I literally had to read it twice. If I were in FOARP's shoes I would have trouble engaging with you here after that as well. The WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality behind that is just incredible. Your openly admitting that the result of the discussion (what the page title is) is not at issue, but that you initiated the review to punish the closer, because it might make some minor difference "leaves a bad message" in some imagined WikiWar that almost no one outside a small select group of people even cares about. Wikipedia is WP:NOT about WP:WINNING. We don't punish people because they didn't support our in the latest proxy fight. Now to be sure tribalism is inherent in humans; I'm subject to it myself, but you have to try and get past that as best you can and keep your focus on the goal of building an encyclopaedia. At this very moment I'm thinking about involving myself in a clean-up effort at some point in the future that will inevitably result in some acrimonious afds. To be sure I won't be perfect, no one ever is, but I can't imagine hauling someone to drv when I felt the result should be delete because the closer kept the article when I thought no consensus was more appropriate just to punish them and ensure the proper message was sent. You've lost perspective here, do everyone, including yourself, a favor and strike the above in its entirety (and make sure that's your only edit per FOARP's request). Regards, 188.168.28.98 (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually you brought it up first, at your close, as is conventional, essentially signalling that you might not be as experienced or expert at closing as an admin; a weak correlation, I agree. But the rest of what you wrote was more problematic. Dicklyon (talk) 19:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Dicklyon, the IP editor is not me. Responding to them as though they were me is ill advised. Continuing to comment here when the MRV is the appropriate forum is also is ill-advised. FOARP (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I got confused. No more comments here. Dicklyon (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Dicklyon,SMcCandlish - now that the MRV is closed I am happy to host any more comments you may have about this issue here. I don't intend to engage in end-zone-dancing here, but I hope you will reconsider your comments about the close I made given that numerous experienced closers endorsed it. FOARP (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It would have been nice if MRV could close with a modified RM closing statement instead of just endorse, but really nothing good ever comes of trying address problems like this there. Sorry we wasted everyone's time. Dicklyon (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll just repeat what I said yesterday: The distinction between "no consensus to move" and "consensus to not move" matters a lot, because the latter has precedencial value in other RM discussions. Too many closers (including various respondents at the MRV) treat them as equivalent but they are very much equivalent.  Too few MRV respondents being willing to call you on your error doesn't mean your close was correct, it just means you're escaping a MRV wrist slap. Learn from this, since closers who end up at MRV over and over again don't keep escaping overturns.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Close of Talk:List of United States Congresses
Hi, this post posed some significant questions in respect to the arguments made to oppose the move and particularly that claimed of an issue in respect to "scope". Scope is really a red herring assertion and nobody has responded at all, let alone in a way that would show that it is otherwise. It is an editor-centric argument and not a reader-centric argument. There is no urgency and, at the very least, it would be better to leave the RM open to see if any cogent arguments could be made in response. I would observe that stating: in terms of weight of the argument, this appears to be a deadlock does nothing to explain what the weight of the arguments are and why this is consequently a deadlock. Arguments are weighed, not just because they give a reason for an opinion but because the reason is cogent - it accurately represents the rationale and evidence such as to substantiate the reason. The reasons for supporting this RM are largely based in policy at WP:AT, yet the close does not specifically mention it. It only mentions two of the many matters raised that are relevant to WP:AT. One also has to look very closely at this discussion to see who is supporting what and when, since the option of the target for the move changed during the discussion and initial opposes have changed. While I believe that the close may have been premature, a lack of detail in the closing comments does not convey to me the rationale for the close that I should have confidence in it. Perhaps you might explain. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Cinderella157. Happy to re-list as this is still no-consensus. However, I strongly suspect that I or another closer will be making the same close in a week's time, due to the clear lack of consensus on the page, for the reasons already given. FOARP (talk) 08:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Re: ANI
There are actual behavioral issues being discussed; "I don't like being dragged to ANI" is not a behavioral issue, neither is not wanting to communicate with someone templating them. If there were no underlying problematic behavior, that response to being dragged to ANI would be completely appropriate. I am posting this here because posting it at ANI would be counter-productive to what I am suggesting, which is to let the locus of discussion be the actual problematic behavior. (And of course feel free to ignore it.) --JBL (talk) 19:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok JBL, I get your point. But accusation of harassment when people are just doing things they have to do are obvious also problematic. FOARP (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

ANI
Hi! This is to acknowledge that I have seen your replies to me on the thread that's now been closed. Obviously, there is no point to continuing that conversation now. I just wanted to thank you for your polite and on-point responses. It's an unfortunate situation which I wish would have resolved better but I have no doubt on the absolute good faith of everyone involved. Regards! And, Happy holidays! Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Honestly this wasn’t the resolution I wanted (that would have been simply a temporary ~1 month block for the uncivil/disruptive behaviour) but that T-ban was waiting for Lugnuts there whenever he next went back there, because he hadn’t made any of the changes people asked for the last time he was there. FOARP (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2021 (UTC)