User talk:TompaDompa/Archive 2

Template discussion you may be interested in
Just a quick note that an editor has asked for opinions on improving the navbox Infectious disease. The discussion is here. I saw you've edited it several times, so I thought I'd let you know. I hope you're staying well. Ajpolino (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, that is indeed a discussion that interests me. TompaDompa (talk) 17:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

List of largest empires image
Hello, you recently removed the lead image of the map of the British Empire that I added to the List of largest empires article. I'm hoping that this is a relatively short discussion between us. I'd like to respectfully present some of my opinions.


 * First of all I disagree with your assertion that "This map doesn't really improve the readers' understanding of the topic". The map does improve the reader's understanding of the topic. It presents them with the map of the largest empire in the history of the world. The size of empires is a very visual thing. When many people think of an empire they think of colored highlights and boundaries on a map. Many readers may not decide to click through to the article of the British Empire and so providing them with a visual example is helpful. The addition of the map of the British Empire fits in well with MOS:LEADIMAGE. Its a natural and appropriate representation. It's not at all of any shock value.


 * Second, I don't think there's anything wrong with the lead image emphasizing the top entry. I think it makes sense. It would obviously be a bit weird to include an image of the Zulu empire or the Caliphate of Cordoba because these empires (though important and significant) rank low on the list. So by this logic it follows that the empire that ranks the highest in terms of size should be the lead image.


 * Third, you may be surprised to find that I don't really have a problem with including a map which highlights both the British and Mongol empires...at least not in theory. Both empires are incredibly important and are the largest in the history of the world. However I do have some concerns about how the lead image would look. I wouldn't want a reader who is new to this topic to be confused. Also including two massive empires on one map could make the image seem cluttered and misshapen. I did find some maps that appear to include both the British and Mongol empires. But I don't know how precise these maps are, or how good they look. Also, I don't know if they would be usable under CC.

I want to make clear that I have no inherent problem with making a map of the Mongol Empire as the lead image of any relevant article. I think if you looked at my edit history you would find that I have a great amount of interest in that empire and time period. But of course I do have some concerns about the Mongol Empire map being used as the lead image for the List of largest empires article because it seems rather obvious to me that the largest empire on that list should be the lead image. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 07:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The map you added doesn't improve the readers' understanding of the topic, it actually has the opposite effect as it is misleading. It includes Antarctic claims (not included in the area on the list) and includes every territory that was ever part of the British Empire, rather than presenting a snapshot of the greatest extent (which certainly wouldn't include the Thirteen Colonies, for example). It's suitable for informing readers about which parts of the world have been under British colonial rule, but not about the British Empire's status as the largest empire in history. I don't think the article should have only a map of the largest empire of all time. It overemphasizes the top entry to detriment of all other entries. I also don't think that the gallery this article used to have was a particularly good solution. A single map which combines the top two entries would be a good compromise, though having no map whatsoever is also a perfectly valid option. There's no reason a map of both empires would need to get cluttered. The map you added of the British Empire is fairly cluttered, but that's mostly because there is a bunch of text. It wouldn't be particularly difficult to create a map of both empires which is colour-coded such that we can simply write "The British Empire (red) and Mongol Empire (green) were the largest and second-largest empire, respectively" in the caption—the overlap is minimal and easily solved with shading. I just happen to lack the skills to make such a map. I'll make a request over at WP:GLMAP. TompaDompa (talk) 12:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Would you possibly be okay with just the Mongol Empire being the lead image? -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 07:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think having no lead image is preferable to having a lead image which only features a single empire. TompaDompa (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Do not impersonate me after you keep editing your own comments out of context.
Never write text pretending that you are me.

You edited your own comments after I responded.

Your original comment and my original "Your opinion is clear cut. Thank you so much." reply: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_Vienna_attacks&oldid=986805141

You then edited your own comment to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_Vienna_attacks&oldid=986805256

I would not have replied to this revision of yours as I did to your original so I too edited my response to.

"Then act like it": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_Vienna_attacks&oldid=986806258 Gold333 (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

You then twice attempted to impersonate me:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_Vienna_attacks&oldid=986806832

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_Vienna_attacks&oldid=986808900

Impersonate me again and I am reporting you for harassment. Gold333 (talk) 04:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Reported to ANI-notice: There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic. Thank you. Gold333 (talk) 05:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * For future reference, this was all a misunderstanding. See Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1050. TompaDompa (talk) 10:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about First Lady and Second Gentleman-designate titles in infoboxes of Jill Biden and Doug Emhoff
Please join a discussion here regarding whether the terms "First Lady of the United States Designate" and "Second Gentleman of the United States Designate" should be in the infoboxes of Jill Biden and Doug Emhoff, spouses of the president-elect and vice president-elect, respectively. We need to come to a consensus. Thank you for your participation. cookie monster (2020)  755  21:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Request: Combined British and Mongol Empire map
- working on the map now. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like this Combined map - British and Mongol Empires.svg - please let me know how you would it amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That looks pretty good, thank you very much! Two minor things: I think it would look better if the British Empire used a single, consistent shade – right now, Ireland, Gambia (and maybe also the rest of British West Africa? It looks slightly brighter to me...), Jamaica, Cyprus, and Newfoundland and Labrador are shaded differently than the rest – but maybe there's a good reason that different shades are used? Also, I think removing the borders would be an improvement since they only apply to the time period of the British Empire and not the Mongol Empire. TompaDompa (talk) 10:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Amended accordingly. Please let me know if you would like any other amendments. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

-ly, TompaDompa, -LY!
An RV that came under suspicion for reeking of meth, echoing with screams or driving on the wrong side of the road would be a "subsequent suspicious RV". But one catching heat for doing a thing that's only considered suspicious as a consequence of the main subject doing it similarly is a "subsequently suspicious RV". But don't get me wrong, you're also right. I appreciate and respect that! Just saying, think about it. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:Infobox country/doc
Hi just saw your edit on the Portuguese Empire, is there any exception to that rule on the Spanish Empire? Because I tried to do the same with that article and a user did revert it for no reason. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 13:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, there's no exception. This is something that was decided upon back in 2016, see Template talk:Infobox former country/Archive 9. I removed it from Spanish Empire as well and left a message on the editor's user talk page. TompaDompa (talk) 13:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring
Your recent editing history at Spanish Empire shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Confine this to the talk page, please. - Donald Albury 14:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I see where you're coming from, and I had no intention to keep reverting. The other editor has shown that they have little to no interest in working collaboratively. I figured I would give them one last chance to back off or engage in discussion (note that I had left a couple of messages on their user talk page, which they ignored) before taking this to WP:ANI for reasons of them being WP:NOTHERE. Oh well, I guess it got an administrator's attention anyway. TompaDompa (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Both of you reverted the other twice within an hour, so I issued the same warning to both of you. As long as neither of you make changes to that section of the article until such time as consensus is reached on the article talk page on that section of the article, I will be happy. - Donald Albury 15:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Stop YOUR DISRUPTIVE edits on World Language
Stop your crazy disruption of World Language article. I am going to undo all the edits you made and restore the article to how it was before. Come to the talk section to discuss. Dajo767 (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Why on Earth would you want to reintroduce, among other things, blatant misrepresentations of the cited sources such as these ? Anyway, on the talk page. TompaDompa (talk) 02:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

World Languages
TompaDompa -

Further to my comments and question in "Talk/World Languages > Two categories?" - here are a few extracts from various sites which may be worth considering as we try to come to some sort of 'equilibrium':

1. I think it's important to retain the English>French>Spanish>Portuguese>other languages hierarchy to accurately reflect the sources - TompaDompa (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC).

2. I would categorize and phrase it like this: English is universally considered a world language. French is generally, usually, or often considered a world language. Spanish is occasionally or sometimes considered a world language. Portuguese is rarely considered a world language. The other languages are generally not considered world languages. TompaDompa (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

3. I'd prefer the following labels: English: universally (in all sources that accept the idea of there being such a thing as a world language); French: generally or usually (in all sources that use the term "world language" in the plural); Spanish: mostly (in most sources that use the term "world language" in the plural); Portuguese: often (still in the majority of sources that use the term "world language" in the plural); The others: occasionally or sometimes (in a minority of sources). Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 10:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

4. That^ works for me. TompaDompa (talk) 21:42, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

5. In: Wikipedia - Global language system [de Swaan]: English is described as'hypercentral' --- At the second highest level, 13 [>12] supercentral languages are very widely spoken languages that serve as connectors between speakers of central languages: Arabic, Chinese, ... French, German, Hindustani, Japanese, Malay, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, Swahili and Turkish...[Dutch is not mentioned].

and:

6. Pyramid of languages of the world This pyramid illustrates the hierarchy of the world's languages as proposed by Graddol (1997) in his book, 'The future of English? A guide to forecasting the popularity of the English language in the 21st century', published by the British Council: The big languages: English, French. Regional languages (languages of the United Nations are marked with asterisk): Arabic*, Mandarin*, English*, French*, German, Russian*, Spanish* and Portuguese..[Dutch, Hindi, Malay, Swahili, and Japanese are not mentioned].

7. Also in Wikipedia: Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) ... is a term used mostly by Western linguists to refer to the variety of standardized, literary Arabic that developed in the Arab world in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It is the language used in academia, print and mass media, law and legislation, though it is generally not spoken as a mother tongue... MSA is a pluricentric standard language taught throughout the Arab world in formal education. It differs significantly from many vernacular varieties of Arabic that are commonly spoken as mother tongues in the area; these are only partially mutually intelligible with both MSA and with each other depending on their proximity in the Arabic dialect continuum.

Regards, David Mc --DLMcN (talk) 07:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * We should be very careful with ranking languages because that might suggest that world language and global language are gradable terms, that global languages can be more global and less global. — BTW, I believe de Swaan is slightly off topic. It seems he uses the term global language system in the sense "global system of languages" (global language-system) rather than "system of global languages" (global-language system), and that's why he covers all extant languages. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * How about a table that lists all possible world languages by number of sources that classify them as such in the first column, and that has another column with symbols, perhaps letters, that identify each such source? Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * This discussion really belongs at Talk:World language, and I've made a couple of comments there addressing some of these points, but I'll briefly reply to a few things here. Firstly, having spent more time searching for and reading sources since then, I'm less inclined to use either my phrasing or 's phrasing about the extent to which certain languages are considered world languages than I was back in November. Secondly, Ulrich Ammon actually does treat the globality of world languages as something that can be graded and even ranked. Thirdly, de Swaan's global language system (also referred to as the "world language system", see e.g. JSTOR 1601190) is indeed a global system of languages rather than a system of global languages as noted above, but since Benrabah equates the terms "supercentral language" and "world language", I wouldn't say that it's off-topic. Fourthly, I don't think we should simply list the languages by number of sources that consider them world languages—that misses a lot of nuance in what the source actually say (in particular, it would not distinguish between a source not discussing a language at all and a source outright dismissing a language as not being a world language), treats all sources as being of equal weight (which they of course are not, since WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and so on), and is highly susceptible to WP:POVPUSHers adding a bunch of low-quality sources to move their favourite language up the list. With those points out of the way, I suggest that further discussion take place at Talk:World language. TompaDompa (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

FWIW
If reliable sources do this (devote significant amounts of prose to reactions), there's no reason to think it is unreasonable for us to do so. Biosthmors (talk) 02:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Signature
Your edit|edit on Talk:2021 Boulder shooting has an old date for it's signature, I assume from a previous reply you copy/pasted. WikiVirusC (talk) 18:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed. That's what I get for composing my edits from previous edits I made while in a hurry. I fixed it. TompaDompa (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

April 2021
Hi TompaDompa, I have reverted all of your edits to the page List of highest-grossing R-rated films. All of your edits has damaged the fluidity of the page. Your edits are not at all correct. All of the reference added to the film Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba the Movie: Mugen Train was discussed back in the talk page with User: Betty Logan. With discussion being successful, I added the reference and Betty has even thanked me for my edits. He didn't termed my edits as original research. It was accepted by all. You should induce in editing the whole as per your own will. Minor changes like box office count update and adding new film to table is acceptable but changing the entire page is like insulting and negleing the edits of others. These edits were already accepted by all. If you want to check that your edits are correct then better use your sandbox and then discussed back with the talk page before change the contents of the article. I hope in future you won't make any mistake. Thank you. いちか かすが (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Conversion Arrest
Your recent editing history at List of highest-grossing R-rated films and Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba the Movie: Mugen Train shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. いちか かすが (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * That's flat-out ridiculous, especially with regards to the latter article. These three consecutive edits represent the sum total of all edits I have ever made to that article to date. As for the former, here's a breakdown of what happened:
 * A few days ago, a maintenance tag which  a quarter of an hour later.
 * Today, I made a series of consecutive edits adding some maintenance tags and making some WP:BOLD changes.
 * You reverted all those edits, asking that I discuss on the talk page.
 * I answered in the affirmative and re-added the maintenance tags which had been removed without explanation. I also started writing a comment on the talk page.
 * Before I had had time to post my comment on the talk page as I said I would, you removed the maintenance tags again, telling me not to edit the article without having looked at the talk page (which I had of course already done).
 * I posted my comment on the talk page, suggesting that we locate a source containing an explicit currency conversion. I then went looking for such a source, found one, and added it to the article.
 * You reverted my edit adding the new source and told me not to edit the article until talk page discussion had ceased.
 * Feel free to bring this to WP:AN/3RR, though I would advise against it lest you face a WP:BOOMERANG on WP:EW and/or WP:OWN grounds. TompaDompa (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Demon Slayer box office numbers
The whole Demon Slayer box office numbers is very up in the air due to various ways of converting. You cited the source of Crunchyroll that has the worldwide gross at $414,385,913. Let us assume that this was the valid amount. This source was published on April 05, 2 weeks ago. Since then there has been further grosses in Japan, South Korea, among regions. I highly doubt that the gross did not increase since the Crunchyroll article (or are you saying that the gross was even lower on the date of the article's reporting date?) I won't get into whether the conversion is correct, just the fact that the source cited is 2 weeks old and most likely does not accurately reflect the total gross even by the standard that Crunchyroll was following. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LetsmaybeLP92 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * There's really nothing we can do about it except wait until we have a more up-to-date source. TompaDompa (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * For future reference, the editor who started the thread at WP:ANI has been blocked as a WP:SOCK of a previously blocked account (closing comment at ANI). TompaDompa (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

SPI Close
Hi TompaDompa, I just came across this edit, where you closed an SPI yourself; I know it may seem silly in some cases, but we generally reserve this for clerks and admins because additional cleanup might be needed – in this case, I've now tagged the sock and requested a global lock. Thanks and best, Blablubbs&#124;talk 19:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I see. I figured there were no "loose ends"; the need for a global lock didn't occur to me. Oh well, I won't do it again. TompaDompa (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

STOP removing the template for the World Language
I want you to stop removing the template attached to the World Language. i do not want to discuss with you because you are a very difficult person to engage in a productive debate. So I am just going to say this - do not remove that template on the World Language. Goodbye. Full stop. Dajo767 (talk) 07:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The conditions for when to remove the template are clearly outlined at Template:POV check/doc, and they are met. that you take this to WP:NPOVN rather than re-add this template; I have now done this for you, see Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. TompaDompa (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

May 2021
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PLUS ULTRA CARLOS (talk • contribs) 13:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * That's complete nonsense and you know it. I reverted you once. If anyone is edit warring here, it's you. You made a WP:BOLD edit, I reverted it, and you reinstated it instead of discussing it on the talk page. TompaDompa (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)



Hello, I'm PLUS ULTRA CARLOS. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks.

As indicated, you seem obsessed with my contributions which you folloW to simply delete my edits. The last in the infobox empire is self-explanatory. Game over, ma cherie

Hello, I'm PLUS ULTRA CARLOS. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks.

Theatrical Privilege in Japan
Recently, you remove a sub-section of a Box Office (Japan) from the page Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba the Movie: Mugen Train. I would like to know where do you want to place these promotion events. Catropst Benzt (talk) 10:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly, nowhere. It seems like the kind of trivia that doesn't belong in an encyclopaedic article about the film in the first place; in WP:10YEARS, nobody is going to come to the article looking for, or expecting, this information. TompaDompa (talk) 10:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It is quite reasonable to add. I find it important because the analyst researcher is studying its success. BTW, the Japanese version of the page placed it below public response. I understand that I placed it in the wrong section (Box Office) But like to know if we can add it to the promotion section. Catropst Benzt (talk) 10:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's perfectly reasonable information to add to a fansite such as https://kimetsu-no-yaiba.fandom.com/wiki/Kimetsu_no_Yaiba:_The_Movie_-_Mugen_Train, but not to a Wikipedia article. It's way too WP:PROMOTIONAL for my comfort. TompaDompa (talk) 11:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In that case, the Japanese version should also remove but I haven't seen any form of conflict there based on mentioned policy. Well, there is some form of mutual understanding among the editor in that part. Please think about it. What I am trying to say that we are not promoting the film by adding the section. Just trying to reach the reader that how the film box office was increasing due to this fan distribution. Catropst Benzt (talk) 12:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Former throne articles
Are you trying to get rid of all the former monarchy articles? I don't necessarily have a problem with that. China's former monarchy is less notable than those of Russia or Italy, which have already been deleted. But I do question some of your edit summaries. "The end of the empire is really the end of the story." Say what? It is a "former throne" article. The end of the empire is when the story starts. "Line of succession" might not be exactly the right phrase. But we can come up with something better. It is not a reason to delete an entire section. If "heir" or "successor" is the terminology used in the sources, it is valid for Wikipedia to follow that. After all the recent subtractions, the article is little more than a stub at this point.

I brought this article back to life when I noticed someone had blanked it soon after an AfD had resolve to keep it. Later, I noticed that many other former throne have been deleted recently. What's going on with the French ones? We can make up an AfD for the three remaining former throne articles. 99to99 (talk) 10:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * It's important to distinguish between the the defunct throne and the dynasty that last sat upon it. Using Russia as an example, it's perfectly valid for Wikipedia to write about internal disputes concerning the headship of the House of Romanov and about Russian pretenders, but we can't write about the current line of succession to the former Russian throne since there is no line of succession to a defunct throne. With the Qing dynasty, there's an additional problem raised by both and  at Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former Chinese throne, namely that they didn't have a line of succession as such. I think your idea of  is a splendid one. TompaDompa (talk) 16:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The result of the AfD was "keep." Are you relitigating it? I wrote only that Pujie was Puyi's heir, not that he was in the line of succession for anything. Are you arguing that Puyi had one heir with respect to Manchukou and another with respect to China? No source says anything like that! The Chicago Tribune calls him, "The heir to China`s throne." The NYT story says, "If Japan had won the war, Pu Jie could have become Emperor of China." Okay, I don't know if that's true. My point is that the NYT promoted him as a guy who might have been emperor of China but for a twist of fate. 99to99 (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The AfD was in 2017. In 2020, no fewer than 40 (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40) articles about lines of succession to defunct thrones were deleted at AfD. If this article were to present "the current line of succession" to the Qing dynasty throne and go through AfD, it would be deleted. Community WP:CONSENSUS has overwhelmingly rejected the notion of defunct thrones having lines of succession that extend to the present day as complete nonsense.The issue about Pujie is that he was made heir to the Manchukuo throne by a Manchukuo law in 1937. He wasn't made heir to the Chinese (i.e. Qing) throne which had already been defunct for a quarter of a century by then, because there was no such throne to be made heir to. So I'm not saying that Puyi had one heir with respect to Manchukou and another with respect to China – the fact of the matter is that he had an heir with respect to the Manchukuo throne (until it ceased to exist in 1945) and no heir with respect to the Chinese throne at that point in time. Manchukuo wasn't a continuation of the Qing Empire. The succession to the Manchukuo throne is consequently WP:OFFTOPIC when it comes to succession to the Chinese throne. TompaDompa (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The 1937 law was issued by Puyi as head of a ruling house. Puyi was a Chinese emperor. How he dealt with the succession issue is therefore relevant to the article. I have already given several sources that describe Pujie as heir to the Chinese throne, or simply as Puyi's heir (without any Manchukuo-related qualification). You are arguing with various major newspapers and reference works. You don't cite any WP:RS, but only the comments of two editors made at an AfD years ago. If you are so confident that the article would be deleted, why don't you nominate it at AfD? 99to99 (talk) 02:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Puyi wasn't a Chinese emperor in 1937. At that time, he was emperor of Manchukuo and a former Chinese emperor. The ruling house you refer to was at that time the ruling house of Manchukuo, not the ruling house of China. Puyi had no authority whatsoever to make anyone heir to the Chinese throne in 1937, because the Chinese throne did not exist then and hadn't for a quarter of a century. What Puyi did have authority to do was appoint an heir to the Manchukuo throne and to the headship of the House of Aisin-Gioro, because those were positions that actually existed (and were held by him) in 1937. Saying that Pujie was made heir to the Chinese throne in 1937 is ahistorical nonsense; there is no heir to a defunct throne, because there is nothing to be heir to. The reason that Pujie didn't succeed Puyi as emperor of Manchukuo was that Manchukuo as a political entity had ceased to exist altogether when Puyi died in 1967. China, however, did still exist as a political entity (arguably two: the PRC and the ROC), and the reason that Pujie didn't succeed Puyi as emperor of China was that the position had been abolished more than half a century prior.The reason I'm not nominating this at AfD is that there is no reason to delete an article about the general subject of Chinese imperial succession. The reasons for deletion apply to extending the line of succession past the point at which the throne ceased to exist (hence why I phrased it the way I did: If this article were to present "the current line of succession" to the Qing dynasty throne and go through AfD, it would be deleted.). If we simply remove the ahistorical nonsense parts about succession post-abolition of the monarchy, we have solved the problem. TompaDompa (talk) 05:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

First and Last Time Warnings
This is the first and last time I am warning you against frequently disputing edits in the page of Demon Slayer Mugen Train without any mode of discussion just randomly removing statement shows that you are possessing the article and your account was created for single purpose. Don't disturb the success of the film with your own edits. The film has changed history of Cinema in Japan. Many Japanese user cited this article to tell people that how the film has changed Japan. Random making edits to hurt the sentiments of Japanese History might lead to arrest by law of land if your location is/are collected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.203.145.225 (talk) 04:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * For future reference, the above IP has been blocked for making WP:Legal threats. TompaDompa (talk) 10:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Demon Slayer Mugen Train
I request you to hold a discussion before making any more edits. Your edits seem to be a conflict for many IP Users. Hope that you do not raise any more problems. Catropst Benzt (talk) 05:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * For future reference, the above editor has been WP:CheckUser blocked. One of the issues was WP:Undisclosed paid editing. TompaDompa (talk) 10:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Gross source for demon slayer
https://www.kinopoisk.ru/film/1347949/box/ use this as source for Demon SLayer movie worldwide gross

Succession to the Chinese throne
If I understand your argument correctly, everything that touches on Manchuria and Manchoukou needs to be removed because such things don't belong to an article about Chinese succession. You are aware that Puyi and the other Qing emperors were Manchu? The movie about Puyi's life is entitled The Last Emperor. Everyone understood that to mean last emperor of China. No one thinks of Puyi as the last emperor of Manchukou. You are not contributing anything to the article, just massively blanking sections. If you don't like the article, let's see you do your thing at AfD. 99to99 (talk) 17:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're getting at. On an article about the succession to the Chinese throne, the throne of the completely separate political entity of Manchukuo is WP:OFFTOPIC. That's all there is to it. TompaDompa (talk) 18:13, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This makes no sense at all. Whatever subsequent jobs Puyi may have held, he was always described as "Chinese emperor", "deposed Chinese emperor," "last emperor," or something along those lines. This status overshadowed his unfortunate involvement with Manchukuo. I have plenty of references to support this. 99to99 (talk) 04:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * So what? This article isn't about the life of Puyi, we have the article Puyi for that. This article is about succession to the Chinese throne. Things that aren't about succession to the Chinese throne are WP:OFFTOPIC and do not belong on the article. TompaDompa (talk) 09:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Problem of your edits in Demon Slayer: Mugen Train
First of based on your talk page's history, you doesn't response to enquires of no. of IP Users and Wikipedia User which agrue with your edits in Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba the Movie: Mugen Train. Either you wait for Adminstrator to block or let your Wikipedia Toolkit ClueBot III to archived the thread. Proof of your zero response. Once the users are blocked you placed a edit summary meaning to say you cannot response to the user which are blocked.

Now I am summarising all the problem of your edits in the mentioned page.


 * Your removal of awards were controversy: You removed the complete award of Lisa whose song Homura is the theme song of the film. Further, you removed Yahoo Search of the Year Award from the section of Accolades.
 * Your condensation of International Section was not at all good. You removed the no. of cinemas and screen hall available due to COVID-19 pandemic. Further, I don't like the statement you say ' on Talk:Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba the Movie: Mugen Train.
 * Further, you removed the tables of Japan and Worldwide Box Office without listening to the important point placed by Orichalcum :
 * Again you didn't listen to another important point stated by the Japanese User :
 * Release Section was heavily condense with only two international release dates and one important release information to China. Based on your edits, the other release dates were not important at all ( your mindset)
 * Reputed Sources: Where does this word arrived in Wikipedia? Both JP's Box-Office and Salty Popcorn The Movie Database are reliable sources. Don't simply reverts those edits. We all just need to prove our edits with sources.
 * You heavily condensed Home Media Section where you wrote : . None of the user added statement like :   or   (example)
 * The entire Issue section was removed without proper evalutions. None of them were wrong and proper sources are added to confirm the edits.
 * You removed the English Voice Cast unnessarily. Since, this is a English Wikipedia, English Voice cast are added along the Original voice cast.
 * You removed the detailed IMAX collections entirely. (mainly Japan, which should not have to be removed)
 * Important privilege for 4DX and MX4D were removed unnessarily.
 * Most Importantly you removed the economical impact of the film :
 * Unnessacary removal of various records in many international territories without prior discussion. The edits were highly disturbing for Japanese readers.
 * Response from Shinkai and Miyazaki were simply removed without proper agruement. The response were genuine since the sources are originally taken from Japanese News Magazine and the twitter handle of directors. No need to remove this section.
 * Finally, do not placed summary like this  You didn't value other experience user edits like Orichalcum and User:Maestro2016, the entire contribution of User:Ichika Kasuga was removed.  Before placing this summary atleast think how much you have depressed these users.

Agree: Phano Mie (talk) 11:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * International Section need to be condensed ( mainly parts of central America, Latin America and Africa)
 * Release dates of various countries should be reorganised with proper source. (if possible: original language source)
 * Home Media sales need to added.


 * Really, you should post your concerns about the content of the article to the article's talk page (Talk:Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba the Movie: Mugen Train)—where other editors can add their input—rather than to my user talk page. If you take a look there, you'll see that the "Issues" section was discussed there (Talk:Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba the Movie: Mugen Train) with and  concluding that it ought to be removed altogether. You'll also see that I wrote We are perfectly capable of writing the grosses for select markets in prose, as is already done for e.g. the US and Canada. in response to the point about Box Office Mojo and The Numbers not having figures for Taiwan and Thailand—and indeed the version of the article prior to your indiscriminate reversion  said It became the highest-grossing animated film of all time in Taiwan by grossing 360 million TWD (US$12.6 million) in 17 days after its release and went on to gross 634 million TWD in total. It also became the highest-grossing anime film in several markets, including [...] Thailand where it surpassed the previous record held by Your Name during the first weekend and went on to gross 124 million THB, and you'll see  and  agreeing with me that the tables you re-added are detrimental to the article's overall quality. It's not just me taking issue with these things (though I am the main one to perform the edits), is what I'm getting at.Your concerns ring a bit hollow to me considering you indiscriminately undid 274 edits by over a dozen different editors, rather than selectively re-adding that which you think ought not to have been removed. They also ring a bit hollow to me since you completely ignored the existing talk page discussion and reinstated your changes after being reverted and asked to take it to the talk page. Lastly, they ring hollow to me because you re-added a lot of content by blocked users, including  who was WP:CheckUser blocked for (among other things) WP:Undisclosed paid editing. Do you appreciate the significance of a major contributor to this article having engaged in undisclosed paid editing? Do you understand that by reinstating those edits, you take complete responsibility for them per WP:PROXYING?All in all, reverting to this WP:PLAGIARISM-ridden, WP:UPE-laden, terribly poorly written version of the article was extremely disruptive of you, to an extent I don't think you fully appreciate. I am going to revert to the shorter version without these massive issues, and I implore you to discuss it on the article's talk page instead of WP:Edit warring. TompaDompa (talk) 12:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have shifted the discussion to the talk page of Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba the Movie: Mugen Train Phano Mie (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Request
Hi, can I ask you something? Fortunewriter (talk) 09:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


 * You can always ask. Due to a fairly irregular schedule I might not respond promptly, however. TompaDompa (talk) 23:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Citing "Jr."
Authors with Jr. should be cited as "|last=[Last Name] |first=[First Name][Jr.]". Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, per MOS:JR. I'm guessing this is about over at Knives Out 2. The automatic reference formatting tends to mess up the authors for Deadline Hollywood articles by creating duplicates with the same person becoming author 1 and author 2. In this case, I caught that error, but missed the improper formatting of the name. Thank you for fixing it. TompaDompa (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Deseret (film)
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Turning articles about major attacks into redirects
Why have you turned many reliably-sourced articles about major insurgent attacks, with double digit death tolls, into redirects? You've given your only reason in edit summaries as content fork, but none of them are that. They're all easily notable enough for articles in their own right & have info in them that isn't in the articles which you've redirected them to. You don't appear to have started any discussions in relation to any of the articles, so there's no consensus for the major changes you've made. Jim Michael (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll refer you to the comments I made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Afghanistan, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Terrorism:"The reason I redirected these particular attacks is that the articles were stubs and the attacks were covered in other articles in about as much detail (or rather with more or less the same amount of quality content), making the stubs unnecessary WP:Content forks. If the articles can be expanded and reach a higher level of quality, I would of course be in favour of doing so rather than redirecting them, but having a large number of articles that could be summarized in a paragraph on a larger article is not in my opinion helpful – it just makes it more difficult to maintain the content."and"The way I see it, we shouldn't have terrorism stubs if the content can be included in an article with a broader scope. Nor should we have list articles or WP:Proseline articles (e.g. List of 2021 Afghanistan attacks or Boko Haram insurgency, respectively) if the content can be summarized—as opposed to enumerated—in prose form. In short, we shouldn't have articles of poor quality. A major part of the problem is that basing articles on news articles does not make for quality content, it (typically) makes for poorly-written, surface-level articles. Sometimes these articles can be salvaged by copyediting to bring them up to at least an adequate standard of quality—I brought 2001 bomb plot in Europe from this state to this state a few years ago, for example—but often the problem is that the sources that would be needed to create a quality article (let alone a high-quality article) simply don't exist. Ideally, we should be using secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts (to borrow a phrasing from a completely unrelated portion of WP:BLP), but the articles are of course usually written/updated when no such sources yet exist (and sometimes, those types of sources never materialize at all). I think we would be better off if we applied WP:NEWSEVENT much more strictly than we do at present, especially as it pertains to WP:DEPTH and WP:DURATION of coverage." TompaDompa (talk) 15:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Pingy thingies
Thanks for that TompaDompa. Fyi, I was intending to ping you, but when I went to User:TompaDompa, you appeared to have achieved an enviable degree of anonymity. I obviously should have looked a bit further. Remembering to sign here, 86.186.155.146 (talk) 08:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Immortality in fiction
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Immortality in fiction you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Whiteguru -- Whiteguru (talk) 01:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Immortality in fiction
The article Immortality in fiction you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Immortality in fiction for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Whiteguru -- Whiteguru (talk) 01:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

“unsourced”
You seem to be on a spree of removing information from Infoboxes witn the edit summary “unsourced”. Stop it. Generally, infoboxes are not required to have citations because, like the lead, they can rely on cited material in the body of the article. Furthermore WP:V makes it clear that lack of citation in and of itself is not a reason to remove material. You have to have a reason to challenge it i.e. disbelieve the information. the reason for the disbelief should appear in the edit summary. if you don’t want to be blocked for disruptive editing I suggest you follow a different approach. DeCausa (talk) 19:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , what I've removed is specifically area and population figures for various historical polities. As per WP:V, All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. and Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. and The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Historical area and population figures are precisely the kind of material whose verifiability is likely to be challenged because ascertaining them is notoriously difficult for scholars to do (increasingly so the further back in time one goes) and the figures they arrive at are usually not uncontroversial due to the inherent uncertainty in the estimates, and furthermore because editors coming up with such figures through WP:Original research and/or claiming that sources verify those figures when in fact they do not is unfortunately not uncommon. Even if that weren't the case, I have challenged those figures by removing them. I suppose I could have been more elaborate in my edit summaries by writing something along the lines of Removing unsourced historical area and/or population figures—a type of data that is inherently suspect due to the uncertainty of the estimates and the tendency of editors to add WP:Original research—per WP:CHALLENGE. Do not restore without citing a WP:Reliable source that explicitly WP:Verifies the figures., but I figured that people would recognize that by removing unsourced material while noting in the edit summary that the material was unsourced I was indeed challenging the verifiability of the material in question. TompaDompa (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If the information is plausible, per WP:V it should not be removed only for being unsourced. It has to be challenged or likely to be challenged, meaning there is a reason for believing it is wrong, not that there is simply a lack of citation. WP:CHALLENGE isn’t a licence to remove material only because it lacks a citation. Take this. Those numbers appear to me to be about right. Just because they are unsourced is not a reason to take it out. If you believe those numbers are not plausible, then the correct edit summary is to say that - that would be the basis of a legitimate challenge. removing it simply for a lack of citation is not a legitimate challenge. Do you see the difference? DeCausa (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you and I have fundamentally different readings of WP:V. I'd say that Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. directly contradicts your assertion that WP:CHALLENGE isn’t a licence to remove material only because it lacks a citation. And clearly, I'm a lot more skeptical about these figures in general than you are; "it's plausible" or "seems about right" simply isn't good enough for me, because experience has taught me that a lot of these figures that "seem about right" to a lot of people are actually way off when compared to what WP:Reliable sources say. What's more, I don't expect that all these figures were added by editors who found them in reliable sources they failed to cite, I expect that these figures are the products of WP:Original research—which is itself a reason to remove the content because original research is not allowed.My general view on this is summarized fairly well by Wikipedia's WP:Editing policy: Unsourced content may be challenged and removed, because on Wikipedia a lack of content is better than misleading or false content—Wikipedia's reputation as an encyclopedia depends on the content in articles being verifiable and reliable. TompaDompa (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, material without citations may be challenged and removed not must be challenged and removed. That doesn’t exist in any policy or guideline. There are massive swathes of WP which lacks citations - it’s crazy to interpret that has all that must be eradicated. No one’s ever interpreted that way. You have to think there’s something wrong with the material as well as there being a lack of citation. Much of the material you are taking out won’t have necessarily been the product of WP:OR - a substantial proportion will have been from a source but added in the the early days (first decade) of WP when there was significantly less emphasis on citation. DeCausa (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I know, I don't interpret it as "must be removed" either (WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue and all that). But when it comes to historical area and population figures, I take rather a dim view. Perhaps an example will help illustrate why: In December 2005, an editor added the assertion that Rome covered a territory of 2.5 million square miles under Trajan to the article Ancient Rome, apparently sourced to The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Rome which was already cited. That claim remained on the article until June 2019 when I checked the source and couldn't locate the figure, replacing it with a properly sourced figure of 5.0 million km2. The figure added in 2005 evidently seemed plausible to a lot of people—Ancient Rome is a rather heavily trafficked article after all—but it's off by more than 25%.I wish I could say that's an isolated incident, but it's really not—the edit history of list of largest empires is absolutely riddled with this stuff. Take this version from 2016: At number 212, the Amorian dynasty of Byzantium is listed as having reached 0.2 million km2 in the year 820, sourced to "Size and Duration of Empires: Growth-Decline Curves, 3000 to 600 B.C.". The thing is, that's a straight-up lie. The source doesn't mention the Amorian dynasty at all—of course a source covering the time span 3000–600 BCE doesn't say anything about 820 CE, that's 1400 years out of scope! Not only is it a lie, it's a rather obvious one once you think about it. Armenian Kingdom at number 199 is sourced to "Size and Duration of Empires: Growth-Decline Curves, 600 B.C. to 600 A.D." which likewise doesn't mention it at all. Crimean Khanate at number 198 is sourced to "Expansion and Contraction Patterns of Large Polities: Context for Russia", which similarly doesn't mention it at all. Goguryeo Kingdom at 195, Kangju Empire at 194, Bahmani Sultanate at 182, Maukhari Kannauj Dynasty at 181, Rai dynasty at 179, Vakataka Kingdom at 176, Kingdom of Nanzhao at 172, and several more—all lies. I am now rather skeptical of these kinds of figures if I haven't checked the source(s) myself, because it turns out that this is an area where editors lie, a lot.It might be the case that some of the unsourced figures are attributable to WP:Reliable sources but happen to be uncited, but that's indistinguishable from the figures being made up from whole cloth, and therein lies the problem. It would seem rather naïve to me, based on my experience, to assume the former is the case when coming across unsourced historical area and population figures. TompaDompa (talk) 00:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Please do not clear out template paramaters
When you are removing information from state templates as you did at South Kasai, please do not remove the entire parameter; it makes it harder to back and fill in the information. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I do that because I think empty parameters cluttering up the infobox is a bigger problem. I guess there's no accounting for taste. TompaDompa (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not simply a matter of "taste"; it creates more work for other people to go back and fill in the information. You're doing this across lots of articles. It's fair enough to remove info because it is unsourced, but that does not mean population figures et. al. do not exist or can not otherwise be found. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Whether or not to keep unused parameters is not an issue with a self-evidently correct approach that's universally applicable (here's an example of when removing them should in my opinion not be controversial: ) . The sad part is that I'm not even sure that creating more work for people to add this kind of information is necessarily a bad thing; editors coming up with area and population figures through WP:Original research and/or claiming that sources verify those figures when in fact they do not is unfortunately not uncommon. TompaDompa (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, fair enough then. But you did remove the info without seeing whether it was sourced in the body first and then afterwards came to the conclusion that source wasn't up to snuff, so please check the body of the article before removing info, since it's common practice for infoboxes to simply repeated info arlready cited in the article body. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I sometimes (but admittedly not always) use the browser's built-in search function to look for "area" in the body of the text; in this case, that didn't bring me to the part of the article where the source was because the word "territory" had been used instead. But yeah, that's on me. I do however think that area and population figures, specifically, should always have a source in the infobox because that is information that is likely to be challenged (since this is unfortunately an area where WP:OR and source misrepresentations abound). TompaDompa (talk) 01:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't exactly agree that population figures for South Kasai are "likely to be challenged" i.e. contentious, but I do appreciate your due diligence. Happy editing. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:26, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Immortality in fiction
— Maile (talk) 00:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Re-open your closure of "Tennis: remove Fed Cup and Davis Cup from criteria?"
Your close at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Tennis:_remove_Fed_Cup_and_Davis_Cup_from_criteria? NSPORT: Tennis: remove Fed Cup and Davis Cup from criteria] does not seem to be sound and I believe you should reexamine your closure. We had 8 folks for an 6 against changes.... that's not consensus be any stretch to change long-standing consensus. And it was looking like "narrowing" was starting to gain traction. Please re-open or close with no consensus to change. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's WP:NOTAVOTE. In general, the considerations are rather similar to the ones in 's of Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) about a week later.The arguments made for removing these cups from the guideline, namely that having played in them is not a strong enough predictor of meeting WP:GNG to presume notability if that is the only evidence of notability, were stronger than the arguments made for keeping them. The latter were mostly variations on the idea that the people who have played in these cups are notable because they have played in them (or more generally, because they are near the top of their field).The suggestion to restrict the criteria for presuming notability to some specified subset of those who have played in these cups was not sufficiently discussed for it to be possible to say that there is consensus either for or against it. View it as "there is consensus to remove the current text, and no consensus about whether to replace it with any specific alternative", if you will. I deemed it unlikely that a consensus would emerge on the latter topic in this discussion (as opposed to a discussion dedicated specifically thereto). My close was and is without prejudice towards starting a new discussion about presuming notability for a specified subset of the people who have played in these cups (e.g. those who have played in the main tournament, as was suggested). If you want me to, I can add that last part to my closing comment. TompaDompa (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not a vote but I see no evidence that one side was stronger than another, especially for a rule that has been around for a decade. You don't apply another conversation to this debate. You saying it's not strong enough sounds like bias on the subject to me and I will take it up a level if you don't re-open. 14 people that wind up 8 to 6 is not consensus by any stretch. User made the same claim about no consensus here, and that was before more opposes were added. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not applying another conversation to this one, I'm saying that my line of reasoning was similar to 's, which is outlined in great detail in their closing comment. I was kind of hoping I wouldn't have to type out my line of reasoning in as great detail. Oh well.One thing germane to both discussions was the relation between WP:GNG and WP:SNGs. In this discussion, there was for instance 's comment that If a criteria does not reliably indicate that a person has almost certainly received significant writing about their lives in reliable sources (beyond trivial mentions) then it isn't serving as a proper criteria for an SNG. This formed the main argument for removal; likewise remarked that it looks as if for many players, having played in these cups doesn't really guarantee sufficient coverage at all in their opening argument,  said The SNG is not adequate, since it does not adequately act as a reliable indicator of meeting GNG (that is the only and single purpose of an SNG - it's not an alternative to GNG)., and  made the somewhat more specific argument that players meeting the GNG will already meet one of the other criteria and those who don't meet any of the other but just this one do not meet GNG.Considering that WP:NSPORT does indeed say The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline., I determined that argument to hold a lot of weight. I consequently expected the editors who favoured keeping the status quo to rebut that argument. The only real attempt at doing so came from, who said The players who play in the Davis/Fed cup are usually the best in the country and receive significant local coverage, to the point that even the top players from countries that don't play in the Davis/Fed cup meet GNG (see e.g. Articles for deletion/Sarah Adegoke). The small number of possible exceptions found so far don't justify gutting or removing the SNG. and the very top tennis players from most countries usually do meet GNG, and the simplest way to identify those top players is to check whether they've played in the Davis cup or the Fed cup, which is the whole point of having these SNGs in the first place. I found that to be a comparatively weak counterargument, relying fairly heavily on generalizations and qualifiers ("most", "usually").I noted that nobody seemed to dispute the first half of 's argument: players meeting the GNG will already meet one of the other criteria (and  made basically the same point: Most notable tennis players will satisfy one of the other criteria anyway.). This is not an argument for removal in itself, but it does weaken arguments for keeping "to be on the safe side" (such as There may be a few that shouldn't be notable, but that doesn't mean mean with throw out the baby with the bathwater.). The second half—those who don't meet any of the other but just this one do not meet GNG—is both an argument for removal and something that weakens arguments for keeping "to be on the safe side", but it seems like  disputes this part of the argument (even if the part about not meeting any other criteria was not explicitly specified, it seems likely enough that that's what they meant that I can't say that it's undisputed).Otherwise, arguments for keeping were mostly assertions that the people who have played in these cups are notable because they have played in them (e.g. 's comment Now International players in any sport playing official matches are notable.), which is not a counterargument against the main argument for removal at all.The possibility of restricting the criteria for presuming notability to some specified subset of those who have played in these cups was raised (specifically, the suggestion was to restrict it to those who have played in the main tournament), but this was not sufficiently discussed for consensus to emerge either for or against it. It does however seem likely that consensus would emerge one way or the other if this were to be discussed separately, rather than as a part of this discussion.The discussion was opened on 31 August. The consensus was correctly  and  by  on 6 October, when there had been no new comments since 23 September. That was entirely proper even though they were involved in the discussion; the discussion had come to a natural conclusion and the consensus was clear. That was however , a WP:Closure request , and  to WT:TENNIS. Then, three new editors including you joined the discussion within a few hours of each other. None of these editors addressed the core argument made in favour of removal—not predicting meeting WP:GNG strongly enough—and their contributions consequently did not materially affect the consensus.I really have no personal opinion on this particular WP:SNG, but the WP:CONSENSUS based on the strength of the arguments was clear. If you think wider community input is necessary, I have no opinion on that either. But I also don't think that is an issue with how or when the discussion was closed. When I closed the discussion, no new editors had joined the discussion in roughly three and a half days (and the last ones who joined did so very shortly after the notice was posted to WT:TENNIS) and there had been no new comments at all for over 60 hours. I saw no reason to expect any significant influx of additional editors or arguments.I'll crosspost a slightly edited version of this to Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports), and I think that any further discussion should happen there rather than here. TompaDompa (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm seeing myself getting pinged a bit here. My advice here for is to be more detailed when writing the initial closing summary. The brief summary of Consensus is that having played in these cups does not predict meeting WP:GNG strongly enough to justify presuming notability based solely thereon isn't enough except in extremely clear cases. In general, it's a good idea to list out the main arguments given for and against particular proposals, at minimum, when they're relatively contested. Something I learned when making non-admin closes early on was that non-admin closes get an extra amount of scrutiny compared to admins (for better or for worse). It's often better to just lay out the reasoning up front so that these sorts of reactions to short closing summaries don't take up lots of time on a talk page. In a more altruistic sense, it helps to be transparent so that others can understand your reasoning and apply it in similar contexts going forward. That being said, if would like to open up a challenge to the close on WP:AN, the editor would be free to do so if they believe that the closure is not a reasonable summation of the discussion. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Clearly, a more detailed closing summary would have saved time in the long run. I'm not a terribly huge fan of either writing or reading closures that are basically a reiteration of every argument made during the discussion, so I figured I'd summarize this one briefly instead and elaborate if anyone questioned it. I do want to point out that it took more than a week for anyone to question it, so it apparently wasn't entirely unreasonable to guess that it could be fine with a short summary in this case. Oh well. TompaDompa (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Reaction section removed
Please check:. --Znuddel (talk) 02:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

War on Terror (POV Title)
@TompaDompa thats fine. It just seemed to me at the time that like the other noun based wars (Poverty, Cancer, Drugs etc.) it was really ill defined but I'll concede it's probably what it's most known as by now. - &#124;&#124; RuleTheWiki  &#124;&#124; (talk) 03:57, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Mass redirects of Embassy articles
Hi,

I noticed you redirect many Embassy of India articles. Was there any discussion related to massive move? I did not find any talk page discussions or notes other than copy-paste summary for all articles. There was referenced information on all pages. Can you please elaborate reasoning behind it? India-xyz country bilateral page could have been a better choice if redirect was needed? AbhiSuryawanshi (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I did it WP:BOLDLY after seeing that one of the articles was at WP:AfD. While the pages were referenced, they barely contained any information (I refrained from redirecting e.g. Embassy of India, Washington, D.C. and Embassy of India, Kabul which actually contained more information than just the basics). I don't have any strong opinions on redirect targets, the list of diplomatic missions of India just seemed like the most obvious target. TompaDompa (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking actions WP:BOLDLY. In case if you missed it - Discussion is simultaneously going on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_International_relations#Embassy_articles_on_Wikipedia. I would like to request you to restore pages till discussion on WP:WikiProject International Relations is complete on what to do with embassy pages. Small note can be left on talk pages so other interested editors can participate in discussions as well. Ideally, policy/guideline will emerge after series of discussions. We can follow community consensus.--AbhiSuryawanshi (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of that discussion, no. All the same, I'll decline to self-revert my edits redirecting the articles for now. I don't necessarily view this primarily as a notability issue. Rather, I view it as a question of how to best present the information. Instead of having a large number of stand-alone articles that contain very little information each, it is sometimes better to keep all the information in an article with a broader scope or a list (and that's true even if the smaller topics are strictly speaking notable). WP:WHYN makes a similar point (though that is explicitly about notability): If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list. I don't know if the sources exist to expand the embassy articles into full-length articles, but considering the state the articles were in when I came across them, it seemed better to redirect them, at least for now. All that said, my edits were bold and can be reverted by anyone who disagrees with them. TompaDompa (talk) 13:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:INDENTMIX
The colon/asterisk sequencing that existed before you changed it in this edit was totally compliant (it's the usage with the third green check). --JBL (talk) 21:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I suppose, but there's a reason that way of doing it is called "acceptable" whereas the way I did it is called "best practice". TompaDompa (talk) 13:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)