User talk:Ixtal/Archives/2023/May

WikiCup 2023 May newsletter
The second round of the 2023 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to have scored 60 points to advance into round 3. Our top five scorers in round 2 all included a featured article among their submissions and each scored over 500 points. They were:


 * Iazyges (1040) with three FAs on Byzantine emperors, and lots of bonus points.
 * Unlimitedlead (847), with three FAs on ancient history, one GA and nine reviews.
 * Epicgenius (636), a WikiCup veteran, with one FA on the New Amsterdam Theatre, four GAs and eleven DYKs
 * BennyOnTheLoose (553), a seasoned competitor, with one FA on snooker, six GAs and seven reviews.
 * 🇩🇪 FrB.TG (525), with one FA, a Lady Gaga song and a mass of bonus points.

Other notable performances were put in by Sammi Brie,  Thebiguglyalien,  MyCatIsAChonk,  PCN02WPS, and  AirshipJungleman29.

So far contestants have achieved thirteen featured articles between them, one being a joint effort, and forty-nine good articles. The judges are pleased with the thorough reviews that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Question from JesushandsLA (05:00, 3 May 2023)
hello. I just submitted my first article about someone notable yet I received a message from Drmies that my article could be deleted, how can i tell? Also, I don't believe I broke any rules or code --JesushandsLA (talk) 05:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2023).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Spicy
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Ale jrb · Dbachmann · DGG (deceased) · Jimbo Wales



CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Jimbo Wales

Oversighter changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Jimbo Wales

Guideline and policy news
 * A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.

Technical news
 * Progress has started on the Page Triage improvement project. This is to address the concerns raised by the community in their 2022 WMF letter that requested improvements be made to the tool.

Arbitration
 * The proposed decision in the World War II and the history of Jews in Poland case is expected 11 May 2023.

Miscellaneous
 * The Wikimedia Foundation annual plan 2023-2024 draft is open for comment and input through May 19. The final plan will be published in July 2023.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Talk - Draft:CGVerse
Hi! Came across your content and wanted to ask you some questions regarding an article I am creating. You offer great advice and seem nice about it. :) My article was declined because of the refs but I wasn't sure which ref and for which quality the refs were lacking (ie in-depth, reliable, secondary, strictly independent) so I can find better refs next time. Thanks Evan0019 (talk) 11:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for dropping by my talk page, I'm glad to offer my advice, . I think the main type of references that are lacking are secondary sources. You include some interviews and self-published sources (the latter includes the Vocal Media article), but what would really show the notability of the school is something like a significant mention in local newspapers in Korea or widely read art magazines. Looking at the "significant coverage" requirement for notability, some sources you include like the 80.lv interview only mention CGVerse in passing so the source would not be considered as showing the academy's notability. An article about the academy itself, rather than the artists running it, is the type of source you should be looking to add. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Non nobis solum. 12:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Question from LeggyLettuce (20:48, 19 May 2023)
Hi, Ixtal! Nice to meet you. I have retired, and I've always wished that my field was better represented in Wikipedia. I'm not sure yet, but I think the best approach might be to do a few small edits first. If it turns out that this is a satisfying activity, however, I'll want to find an organized approach--like starting with a wish list of articles and creating over time. What is my best strategy for discovering like-minded editors? --LeggyLettuce (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * WikiProject is a good place to start. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Your recent discussion closure at MoS/Bio
Greetings,

You recently changed the section at Moving post-nominals from lead sentences to article bodies into an RFC and closed it. It was long past due to be closed, so I thank you for that. However, I find myself disagreeing on multiple points with your summation of the discussion and your conclusion that there was a consensus, and I believe your summation was almost entirely one-sided. Even more important than my belief that your summation was one-sided is that I don't believe you correctly applied WP:DETCON. The summation I got from the discussion is that there is no consensus. You talked about it being a clutter issue and not relevant to establishing who a person is but yet in the discussion the supporters couldn't explain how it was any more cluttering or important for establishing than middle names, full birthdates, or nationalities (2 of those points I notice are currently being discussed on the same talk page). As for the WP:ENGVAR, I'd remind you that multiple editors independently brought up ENGVAR (Gusfriend's post of 10 March is particularly interesting in this regard) and tcr25's post of 11 March in particular explained why whereas the support camp seemed to simply dismiss it (I suspect perhaps due to bias blindness from their own ENGVAR but didn't want to mention such at the discussion for fear of the discussion devolving since editors are human and humans tend to get angry when you point out their unconscious biases, even though it's not anything to be defensive about).

I understand that as I was one of the most outspoken opponents I may be biased so I would like to ask how to you came to the conclusion that the support camp made better arguments when they couldn't answer the points brought up by the oppose camp, and their examples given were repeatedly shown to be problematic.

If this goes through as a new policy it is going to result in necessitating a lot of future discussions about how to apply it. If they are not to be in the lead, and not solely in the infobox (which I agree with), then where does it belong? Having a separate "style" section has proved problematic (ie here for just one example), and if it's anywhere outside of the lead then the first a reader would encounter it would be in the Infobox, which as discussed would be more confusing not less - so does this now lead to the slippery slope where it ends up getting removed from the infobox, or even from the article entirely? And there's going to have to be separate discussions on which postnominals ARE defining enough to be included (ie VC would probably pass), but now the lines just becoming more and more "swerving and squiggly", looping around to randomly exclude and include various things and makes it even more confusing to try to write articles for editors who haven't been part of these discussions. There's also going to have to be discussions about if past articles that met high status levels all need to be modified and/or reassessed in light of this. If this was a topic where I simply disagreed, I would simply drop it and move on, but this is a trifecta: I strongly disagree, I believe it was done improperly, and it's going to open up several cans of worms.

Thank you for your time,

Gecko G (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2023 (UTC)


 * , I appreciate you coming here. You've left me a thoughtful comment so I'll probably have to wait until tomorrow or Sunday until I can dedicate the time to honor it with a thoughtful reply. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Non nobis solum. 18:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to rehash the debate on your talk page, Ixtal, but I want to respond specifically to the slippery slopes point. I deliberately included the following line in my RfC proposal to address this issue: "the exact wording of [the] revised section will be determined after this RfC concludes." Step one has concluded with consensus to remove post-nominals from lead sentences, and now it's time to sort out the cans of worms. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the small note, . — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Non nobis solum. 08:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , since you made many points here I'll respond in list form for clarity purposes, hope that is okay.
 * The discussion had been filed in Closure requests, so I closed it as an RFC by mistake. Thanks for pointing that out. I've now fixed the template to reflect a normal discussion closure.
 * You argue that you did not see consensus in the discussion. I would agree that there was no overall agreement by the RFC participants which is why I mentioned the proposal divided the community. However, when closing we do not look at the number of votes on either side but rather the strength of arguments on either side.
 * The reason why I did not mention middle names, birthdates, or nationalities is that those aspects of the lead sentence are not affected by the proposal. Just because there is consensus to mention the middle names of subjects in the lead does not mean that postnominals inherit that consensus somehow.
 * Multiple people bringing up ENGVAR does not strengthen the argument they are making regarding the guideline. Postnominals are not a linguistic element of British English: they are a cultural and political one. ENGVAR is about vocabulary, [...] spelling, [...] and grammar. American or Indian or South African English all treat postnominals the same way as British English does. Therefore, I found no compelling argument being made that the ENGVAR guideline supports British postnominals being inherently due inclusion in the lead sentence under MOS:FIRSTBIO.
 * The purview of my closure is strictly the discussion itself, not how editors are supposed to apply the consensus of the discussion. I am meant to trust that editors participating in the discussion understand the implications of any options they support or oppose. Where the postnominals will be placed is not something I am responsible for or willing to decide. I fully trust the community will competently figure it out.
 * — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Non nobis solum. 08:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, distilling it to bullet points does make it easier...
 * #1 is a technical issue that I don't understand but ultimately it's also not anything I have any dispute with. It probably would of been better to let it auto-archive, but it never was archiving because every time it came close someone new would come along with an off-topic comment or a "me too" type of vote that added nothing to the strength of either sides argument, so forcing it closed via an RfC is fine in my view.
 * It is #2 that is the crux of my problem with your closure. As you said ...there was no overall agreement by the RFC participants.. Obviously.  ...when closing we do not look at the number of votes on either side... true, though this wasn't a landslide either, ...but rather the strength of arguments on either side. It's that last part I am absolutely stumped by.  Can you explain what you found so convincing about the support camp's arguments? In particular that they are strong enough to constitute a WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS? To me it seemed like some of the weakest arguments I've ever seen in a long wikipedia discussion.  Usually long wikipedia discussions help me to see the other sides argument and by the end my final position shifts more towards the middle.  This discussion was the first time I ever became more convinced of my initial position from the debate, not less.
 * #3 wrt to Clutter was just one particular example of how one side wasn't making a coherent, consistent, convincing argument - and it was one of the strongest counters from the oppose camp but you made no mention of this, nor seemingly any of the oppose side's points in your summation, hence your summation reads as one-sided. Again, I may be biased because I was a participant - so I would welcome it if you can point out a resulting unconscious blindspot I may have as a result, but over the course of the long discussion, I recall the oppose camp countered every point the support camp brought up (often with examples), and showed several issues with the support camps examples, but the support camp hardly ever addressed any counter points brought up by the oppose camp nor expressed any problems with our counter examples - yet you are saying they had a stronger argument, how-so?.
 * #4 is similar to #3, but since it could be considering to be encroaching into rehashing territory, I suppose I'll avoid going further into it here.
 * #5 is very fair, it should of been part of the proposal but yes, it is not relevant here.
 * I am trying to see if there is something in the other sides argument that I'm missing or unfairly discounting, perhaps because I'm too close to the debate (having been a participant in it recently), but your drastically different reading of consensus, combined with what seemed to be your very one-sided summation of the discussion, make me suspect I should go to WP:AN per the 1st point of the 2nd section under "Challenging other closures" at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE: Closures will rarely be changed by the closing editor, but can be challenged in a closure review:
 * 1. if you believe the closure was not a reasonable summation of the discussion
 * At this point in time I do not believe the summation in the closure (nor the deterimination of consensus) was a reasonable summation of the discussion. Can you change my mind? Or should I start reading up on the WP:AN process (I've never used it before, so I don't know how nor what's involved)?
 * Cheers, Gecko G (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , feel free to file a closure review at AN if you feel it necessary. I believe in my closure's reasoning but will gladly retract it if the community consensus is that I erred in my reading of the discussion. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Non nobis solum. 10:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I plan to do so - though unfortunately given how tight my schedule is for the next few days it might be middle of the week till I have time to figure out the details of how to do so.
 * I've been told that I can come across stronger than I mean to in a text-based communication such as this, and this process can easily be viewed as adversarial, so I sincerely hope that you haven't viewed any of this as any-sort of attack on you personally. I want to assure you that is definitely not my intent and will remain so going forward to the next step.  I commend anyone who is willing to step in from the outside to attempt to arbitrate a disagreement, especially one with as much material as this one to catch up on (I'm currently attempting to do so on a much smaller disagreement elsewhere here on Wikipedia, but this was a long 6 week discussion where we weren't always the most eloquent - you are braver than I), so I thank you for the attempt, but I believe I must challenge your synthesis in this instance.
 * I know one of the steps is to post a notification to you, so I'll be back here to your talk page to do so when ready to commence the process. Good day, Gecko G (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've been terribly busy with exams myself so I don't mind you taking a few days to find a quiet moment when you can file the closure review. Lead paragraphs are the only thing 90% of our readers read, much to my disappointment, so getting it right is paramount. That is why, even though I fully believe in my closure, fully welcome getting more experienced editors to assess my closure.
 * I have not felt like you've been adversarial or uncomfortably "strong" while talking with me and have personally enjoyed the conversation, . I hope after this is resolved I'll see you around the wiki in the future and wish you good luck with your busy week. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Non nobis solum. 16:04, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , pinging for when you're back on wiki in case you forget. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Non nobis solum. 19:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Makes very fair points and agree with his objection, if he is unable to return to wiki I may lodge an appeal instead.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 20:42, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , keep in mind that with it being over a month since the close without any complaints, it is highly unlikely the appeal will succeed. Feel free to try anyways. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Non nobis solum. 21:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, I just now noticed that the MOS:BIO post-nominals RfC has been closed. If I'm following the discussion above correctly, I think you made a revision to your close to change it from an 'RfC' close to a 'Discussion' close, but I think you were correct before: the post-nominal discussion was an RfC so it should've been closed as an RfC as it was not a regular 'discussion' so to speak. It started off as a regular discussion on 04:22, 4 March 2023 but then switched to an RfC on 9 March 2023, so it has been an RfC for at least a whole month before you closed it on 14:41, 14 April 2023. Anyway, I just wanted that to be clarified in case there is a technical difference between an RfC closure and a regular 'discussion' closure. Thanks for taking your time reading through the discussion and closing the RfC. Some1 (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Question from Galourz47 on User:Galourz47 (12:00, 28 May 2023)
Hey, 👋 Please help, I would like to know how can I change / update my user name / page title. --Galourz47 (talk) 12:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * , see Changing username for more information on how to do so. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Non nobis solum. 12:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)