Archives

August 2021 October 2021 November 2021 December 2021 January 2022 February 2022 April 2022 May 2022 July 2022 August 2022 September 2022 November 2022 December 2022 January 2023 February 2023 May 2023 August 2023 October 2023 November 2023 February 2024 July 2024 September 2024 October 2024 November 2024

I may not be able to offer you the baton, but I hope you can savour these bâtonnets as you study all the new admin buttons! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! And thanks for your work on this! FOARP (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Super proud of you!! Welcome to the admin corps :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Leeky. I can definitely say I couldn’t have done this without your support! FOARP (talk) 08:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw you passed, congrats!!! JoelleJay (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JJ! FOARP (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A very belated congratulations. A well-deserved testament to your good judgment. Choess (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Choess! I do try! Not always successfully! FOARP (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, had my double espresso now... in the close you wrote:

The result was Deleted - Since it was generally agreed that WP:GNG appears to be failed, the main point of contention here is whether WP:NPROF 1a is met or not. The main evidence cited for keeping the article is the h-count and citation numbers of papers authored by the subject. However, the appropriate cut-off point for whether the numerical figures given here were sufficient was disputed, as well as the relevance of these metrics. Even in the words of a keep !voter, the h-count metric was only "just about" met, while others stated that it was below their cut-off. Numerically, the number of !voters clearly split in favour of deletion, the arguments were closer but still leaned towards deletion since the only grounds for keeping were disputed and not endorsed by following editors. COI concerns were also raised. With only two new !votes in the past week, there was no grounds to further re-list this. No objection to re-creating this article with more sourcing or redirecting.

I agree the "main point of contention here is whether WP:NPROF 1a is met or not". Two indept voters (me & Ldm1954) who are familiar with academic AfDs both ended up on the side of believing it was met, though not strongly. The nominator (CNMall41) disagreed, but their discussion with Ldm1954 revealed they had a misunderstanding of the way PROF 1a works. In their discussion with me, they wrote "I think we are close. I don't believe this would meet GNG so the only thing I think we differ on at the moment is if his citations would meet the threshold of #C1. I wouldn't be opposed to requesting other editors with experience in that space to chime in." After that there was some irrelevant discussion amongst the three of us, followed by a drive-by GNG-based vote which is of no merit if PROF is met, as Ldm1954 pointed out and CNMall41 didn't contest.

The AfD seems to me a clear case of needs more data, ie either (1) leave open another week with a note requesting opinion specifically on the PROF 1a question, possibly in association with actively seeking further input (though that's fraught); or (2) close as no consensus.

With regard to your close rationale, (1) I'm not seeing "while others stated that [the h-index] was below their cut-off." I don't think anyone actually wrote that?; (2) numerical vote counting in PROF cases is particularly pointless.

On a more general front, the close felt to me (whether it was or not) like a supervote from someone whom I perceive (rightly or wrongly) as opposed to the very idea of SNGs that override the GNG.

I'm actually not that bothered in this specific case; if Kotter is genuinely notable then sooner or later PROF passing will become more obvious, and/or GNG will be met. If you don't feel minded to withdraw your close in favour of relisting to attempt to find a genuine consensus, then I might or might not bother taking it to deletion review. Tbh I have better things to do.

However I am genuinely concerned that your AfD closes of any topic in which current policy is that an SNG overrides GNG will be at best contentious and at worst plain wrong. I believe it borders on being WP:Involved ("This is because involved administrators may be, or appear to be, incapable of making objective decisions in disputes to which they have been a party or about which they have strong feelings. Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." [emphasis mine]), because (1) you (I believe) have a longstanding dispute with the existing policy; and also (2) I'd say you have had significant conflicts with me. Fwiw, (1) I gave up closing AfDs altogether long ago because it became clear to me that I was not capable of being sufficiently objective; and (2) I would not consider myself uninvolved in this sense with you.

I also fear that making what feels to me a biased, ideology-driven close some hours after being elected to adminship with (I think you would admit) minimal discussion and 106 opposes makes me question your judgement. I don't generally discuss the conduct of other admins, so this is a departure for me. Hopefully it can be a learning experience for both of us. Now off to make another espresso and see how many speedies have accumulated while I've been typing. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 01:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support the opinion of @Espresso Addict about the explanation of the deletion decision, which I don't believe fully represents the discussion. (I cannot say anything about prior history.) I went back over the discussion, and here is my summary:

1. Votes for delete per GNG=2 ; Votes for delete per GNG and NPROF=3 ; Votes for keep per NPROF=2.
2. Many of the statements in the delete votes about no significant coverage are not relevant to WP:NPROF.
3. The COI issue may be real, but I do not believe this should ever be grounds for a decision that a BLP is not notable.
4. Editors who provide concrete arguments about WP:NPROF#C1 are Ldm1954 and Espresso Addict. The argument was based upon both (quoting) several extremely highly cited scholarly publications and a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates, both part of C1a. Please note that he passes both, it is not easy to get > 1K citations.
5. As I stated in my comments, my bar for academic notability is high, and in fact many others have a significantly lower bar. For many his citations would pass #C1 with flying colors.
6. Only one editor (@CNMall41 questioned the notability based upon #C1, the other votes did not include extensive analysis.
7. He compares well judging against his peers, which is an established way to check citation relevance.

To me the votes to delete per GNG should be discarded, which then leaves 3:2 with only one of the deletes (the nominator) making significant comments; this could also be interpreted as 1:2 for delete versus keep. To me this is no concensus, and I strongly support either leaving this open or changing the decision to no concensus.

N.B., I do not believe I have any prior background with you or @CNMall41, although I think I have seen @Espresso Addict at some academic STEM AfD's. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Seems to me a clear case of needs more data, ie either (1) leave open another week with a note requesting opinion specifically on the PROF 1a question, possibly in association with actively seeking further input (though that's fraught); or (2) close as no consensus." - I was not requesting more data. I was open to the opinion of others who have not opined in the discussion already. I still do not believe the page meets NPROF.

"they had a misunderstanding of the way PROF 1a works" - I have an understanding of how NPROF works. I can always be corrected if my understanding is wrong but nothing in that discussion leads me to believe that my understanding of the guideline is wrong. What was in question is whether that person's particular citations would get them over the threshold. Again, I do not believe they do. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response, CNMall41. By needs more data, I meant the AfD needed input from fresh eyes. I have slightly edited my original note to make this clearer. There appear to be only three opinions on the WP:PROF1a question, plus a largely uncontested agreement that GNG is not met. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. I apologize as I wrongly assumed that you believed I needed more data. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“On a more general front, the close felt to me (whether it was or not) like a supervote from someone whom I perceive (rightly or wrongly) as opposed to the very idea of SNGs that override the GNG.”

- this is a flat-out wrong impression and if I were you I’d strike it. I am fully aware that NPROF is independent of GNG and said as much in my close.

"I also fear that making what feels to me a biased, ideology-driven close some hours after being elected to adminship with (I think you would admit) minimal discussion and 106 opposes makes me question your judgement. I don't generally discuss the conduct of other admins, so this is a departure for me."

- I hope you will reflect on the tone of this comment which seems to jump straight to assuming bad faith and is also essentially casting doubt on everyone who passed through the AELECT process.

I’ll certainly think about the other comments raised after I’ve had a chance to have a cup of coffee and read the news… FOARP (talk) 07:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I've had a bit of coffee, and to be honest I do not remember every interacting with you at all Espresso Addict. I recognise your handle, but I don't recall any discussion between us at any point. Perhaps a search might turn one up, but I don't believe there is any history of conflict, far less anything that might make us WP:INVOLVED. There doesn't seem to be much assumption of good faith in anything you've written here. Again, I hope you'll reflect on that.

Since three editors from the discussion including the nominator are all here and seem open to a relist, I don't think I can deny that, so I'll vacate and re-list for another week. FOARP (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FOARP -- Thanks for reopening the discussion; I think it's the best solution to attempting to judge the notability of Kotter, and indeed I see another comment has been added already.

I'm sorry that I failed to assume good faith in my earlier comment. I was, I admit, extremely annoyed at the close, which I saw just as I was going to bed: never a good time to edit. We have actually overlapped in several places, both in AfD and Wikipedia-space discussions, and most recently in the ongoing RfA. I did later realise that perhaps I had vividly remembered you, but you had not noticed me; and I also wondered if I'd tended to see you in discussions with a particular group of editors, but had made an unwarranted assumption about your views by association.

I'm also sorry that I brought my genuine concerns about the new admin elections into this discussion, with someone who has been brave enough to run with the new process, and well supported enough to succeed. Usually, as I wrote above, I try not to comment on other admin's actions, and perhaps I just don't have the interpersonal skills to do that properly. Food for thought. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 00:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to add that I am not really open to a relist, but I don't object to it. Probably the best call absent DRV. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just saw you were having a bit of trouble relisting the discussion there, and thought I'd mention turning on Wikipedia:XFDcloser in your setting might make it a little bit easier in the future. I don't think anyone actually knows how to relist things manually these days lol everyone finds it too much easier to just click the button and off it goes. Alpha3031 (t • c) 23:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I knew there must be some bot/script/etc. for doing all this, didn't know which - thanks for the tip! Did it manually but the only page I wasn't brave enough to try to edit manually was the list of re-listed discussions. FOARP (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep playing with the shinny new buttons. Wikibear47 (talk) 01:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wikibear! I have to admit I was rather overwhelmed when I saw all the "shinny new buttons" that come with the tool-set, and I don't dream of pushing even half of them for quite some time to come! FOARP (talk) 21:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The axe of responsibility
	Shiny new tools might be used to mete out justice, mercy or a dose of reality. Let us commit to not losing our cool when using them. Our only armor is the entire community's trust. We wear it for each other, each new contributor, and each new generation to come. May you ever be the community's champion. BusterD (talk) 14:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Buster! And a good reminder! FOARP (talk) 21:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey FOARP, I think I've seen you here and there for several years now and always had a good impression of you. I'm glad to see that several hundred people agree! I'm not sure what gave me that positive feeling – it seems we've only directly interacted once, but I'll never forget your unique username. Best, Toadspike [Talk] 17:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Toadspike! I do try, I don't always succeed, but I do try. FOARP (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Congrats! Andre🚐 22:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Cheers @Andrevan! FOARP (talk) 12:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The new admin baton
	Congratulations on winning the admin election! Sohom passed the fabled baton to me and, and having given it a twirl or two, I am passing it on to you! Once you are done appreciating its magnificence, do pass it to the next admin. Happy mopping!

Yours, Peaceray (talk) 23:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A belated congrats, FOARP! The userrights log linked in the baton box doesn't show the next admin since you're the last of the elected; Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Voorts recently closed successfully, though. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FOARP. Thank you for your work on Battle of Steamroller Farm. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for writing the article! Have a blessed and wonderful days ahead!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 01:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Evidence presented by FOARP for ArbCom. For this kind of information to be useful, I think there are at least two 2 more questions you can ask.

• Why does the title of a page contain the word 'massacre'? How did it happen? e.g. who created the page etc.?
• Are !votes consistent or inconsistent with policy? A bit difficult to measure admittedly, but I suppose consistency with outcome might be an interesting thing. That is what presumably matters, policy-based voting rather than whether a !vote happens to track a POV. Whether a !vote matches a POV doesn't contain information about policy compliance.

Feel free to ignore these suggestions of course. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add: What was the end result? If the article was moved, if so, to what? cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For interest, pages within A-I topic area that started out with massacre in the title and were moved to new titles. Pinging Zero0000, as they are interested in titles containing this word. Sean.hoyland (talk) 02:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra and Sean.hoyland: - Thanks for getting in touch. Folks, I'm limited on the number of words I can write in evidence and the point I'm making is not that these people always voted against consensus or that there never was any basis in PAGs for what they were saying, it's that for some of the parties it didn't matter whether there was basis in PAGs or not, and contradictory arguments were being made depending on whether it was an "I" article or a "P" article (i.e., they are POVWARRIORs who are ultimately NOTHERE). However, my diffs are up so if you want to make a submission based on them please go ahead (I think Zero0000 has already done this). I'll review the above list and see if more discussions can be added, though I'm not going to go back earlier than late 2023. FOARP (talk) 11:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I'm still thinking about whether to submit evidence. Ideally, it would just be a web page with big button that says 'GO!', and some hours later, if the servers are in a good mood, the evidence might be rendered for the person...maybe. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, obviously there's other stuff I could have talked about, and it would be great if there was some easier way of explaining things. I think you can see from the above discussion with BM that "airstrike" versus "attack" was a conflict-area also, likely because "airstrike" sounds clinical whilst "attack" sounds more aggressive. But, I only have 500 words, and not for no reason either - ARBCOM doesn't have infinite time.

I actually only just looked at the preliminary statements page and saw that "massacre" had been a big area of discussion. What triggered me to do that was closing the Hollit discussion (which, as was typical, was challenged) and then seeing people make, for a Palestinian-focused page, what appeared to be contradictory arguments to the ones they made when the topic was Israeli. FOARP (talk) 13:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm bringing this up here since I'm not allowed to participate in the RfC because WP:RUSUKR prevents me (unlike 77.241.128.28, who seems exempt), but this Kyiv Independent article[1] has an example of a Ukrainian government source alleging NK combatant involvement.

I find myself in a weird situation where I want to contribute to the discussion in good faith, and I could contribute much more effectively/efficiently if I could respond to people's comments directly. I've somewhat jokingly thought of making edit requests for restricted areas of the talk page, since as far as I can tell nothing says I can't do that, but here I am for now! Placeholderer (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see any need to respond to the IP. FOARP (talk) 06:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FOARP, this notice is for everyone who took part in the 2023 RfC on lists of airline destinations. I have started a new RfC on the subject. If you would like to participate please follow this link: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not § RfC on WP:NOT and British Airways destinations. Sunnya343 (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This RFC was a mistake, as you can see from the response. FOARP (talk) 07:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me upgrade this to “big mistake”. Never ask complex questions bundling matters together like this if your intention is to get a “yes” result, because in reality you’re just unifying your opposition and dividing your support.

To get a “yes” on WP, the question needs to be as simple and as clear as possible. FOARP (talk) 09:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say thanks, I agree with your case and appreciated discussing it with you last month. I'm not veteran enough to have my comments stick, but I appreciate bringing up the China example. It's a good one, probably better than Libya or Artsakh TheBrodsterBoy (talk) 04:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2025).

Administrator changes

• Arcticocean
• Wugapodes

Euryalus

CheckUser changes

• Firefly
• L235

Oversighter changes

• Firefly
• Guerillero
• L235
• Moneytrees

Technical news

• Administrators can now nuke pages created by a user or IP address from the last 90 days, up from the initial 30 days. T380846
• A 'Recreated' tag will now be added to pages that were created with the same title as a page which was previously deleted and it can be used as a filter in Special:RecentChanges and Special:NewPages. T56145

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Palestine-Israel articles 5 has been closed.

---

I would think that this edit (the middle paragraph) is casting WP:ASPERSIONS and an inappropriate comment to make in the RM discussion. I would suggest that it be struck. It would also appear that you have misconstrued the meaning of scope in the context that I have been using it in the discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cinderella, since presumably this isn’t just Wikilawyering, I’m happy to strike the part about that. FOARP (talk) 04:08, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in the Russo-Ukrainian War. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Cinderella157 (talk) 02:14, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2025).

Administrator changes

• Jarry1250
• Lethe

CheckUser changes

• AmandaNP
• Drmies

Oversighter changes

AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is open to discuss whether AI-generated images (meaning those wholly created by generative AI, not human-created images modified with AI tools) should be banned from use in articles.
• A series of 22 mini-RFCs that double-checked consensus on some aspects and improved certain parts of the administrator elections process has been closed (see the summary of the changes).
• A request for comment is open to gain consensus on whether future administrator elections should be held.

Technical news

• A new filter has been added to the Special:Nuke tool, which allows administrators to filter for pages in a range of page sizes (in bytes). This allows, for example, deleting pages only of a certain size or below. T378488
• Non-administrators can now check which pages are able to be deleted using the Special:Nuke tool. T376378

Miscellaneous

• The 2025 appointees for the Ombuds commission are だ＊ぜ, Arcticocean, Ameisenigel, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, Galahad, Nehaoua, Renvoy, Revi C., RoySmith, Teles and Zafer as members, with Vermont serving as steward-observer.
• Following the 2025 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: 1234qwer1234qwer4, AramilFeraxa, Daniuu, KonstantinaG07, MdsShakil and XXBlackburnXx.

---

Hey FOARP, I guess this is really on me, but I'd like to hear your thoughts. You closed this RM as "Moved" with the rationale "No oppose !votes, no reason not to carry out the move." The nominator did not cite any sources other than Japanese Wikipedia, which is obviously not a reliable source, so I have no idea if their claims are true or not. In hindsight, I should've left a comment along the lines of "oppose until sources are provided as evidence", but I did not, choosing a softer wording instead, so your close is justified. I'm not going to ask you to undo your close, but I do wonder if you have the same reservations I have. Toadspike [Talk] 13:19, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the JP Wiki articles for Ten-Go and Kikusui (in machine translation - I lived in Japan for a while but that was 15 years ago now) and found them to be cited to a range of sources I wasn't able to review, but they do include the Yamamoto sortie under Kikusui (this appears to be cited to the official Japanese history and the testimony of ). I presume the proposed move was intended to be cited to the sources in those JP wiki articles, not the JP wiki articles themselves. Based on that I couldn't see any reason to deny the move.

I note that the JP Wiki article on the Yamato has this section:

"In his journal, Sensouroku, Vice Admiral Ugaki, commander of the 5th Air Fleet, criticized the response of Chief of the Naval General Staff Oikawa, saying that when Chief of the Naval General Staff Oikawa presented "Operation Kikusui No. 1" to Emperor Showa, the Emperor asked, "Will it be an all-out attack on the air forces alone?" Oikawa replied, "We will use the entire force of the Navy," which led to the Second Fleet's maritime suicide attack."

Which is cited to the Japanese book "Testimonies of Survivors of the Battleship Yamato" by Kurihara. It therefore doesn't appear inaccurate (unless the original source is misquoted) to say that the sortie of the Yamato was undertaken as part of Kikusui 1.

I'm happy to re-open for more discussion if requested. FOARP (talk) 13:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's good, I'm glad you looked into it. I am willing to AGF on the sourcing, so there's no need to re-open the RM. Thank you for your speedy response! Toadspike [Talk] 13:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, and thank you for contributing the page Marika Stiernstedt to Wikipedia. While you have added the page to the English version of Wikipedia, the article is not in English. We invite you to translate it into English. It has been listed at Pages needing translation into English, but if it is not translated within two weeks, the article may be listed for deletion. Thank you. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly wrong since it's written in English, I assume this is a bot malfunction. FOARP (talk) 08:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the article and in particular, that section of the infobox in question? Perhaps you might reconsider your close if you had not. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:23, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I followed the discussion around Vanezi’s comments if that is what is being referred to here? But as far as I could see their condition (I.e., only supporting removing the mercenaries if Turkey was included unconditionally as a belligerent) was not met and so they appear to still be opposed. Otherwise I’m not sure what is being referred to.

Personally, as discussed in this past, I prefer keeping the infobox as simple as possible, but I was closing, not !voting. FOARP (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2025).

Administrator changes

• Giraffer
• Goldsztajn

Dennis Brown

• Cyclonebiskit
• Nohat
• Someguy1221

Bureaucrat changes

Barkeep49

CheckUser changes

0xDeadbeef

Oversighter changes

GB fan

Moneytrees

Miscellaneous

• Sign up for The Core Contest, a competition running from 15 April to 31 May to improve vital articles.

---

Could you explain why there wasn't consensus to move to Imjonseong (removing "Fortress")? There were 5 supports for that proposal (Myceteae, SnowFire, Toadspike, seefooddiet, and myself) versus 1 or 2 opposes (Amakuru; Ymblanter didn't comment on the alternative proposal), and the reasoning was based in policy. Malerisch (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Malerisch, thanks for getting in touch.

I was focusing on the consensus of the proposed move and hadn't noticed one had formed for an alternative. I think you're right so I've update the close. FOARP (talk) 14:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for your RfC closure [2]! It's so long that I thought no one was going to read it and close it.

One minor request though, would you mind adding a wikilink for WP:PAG? It's an acronym that I don't think many people are aware of. Thanks! Bogazicili (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about redirecting thus to the nearby hamlet of Selagama? Bearian (talk) 17:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What source says the name is anything to do with that village? FOARP (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welinganwala is basically a suburb of Selagama. Look at the maps. Bearian (talk) 00:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The location in the article looks like that, but we don’t know it’s called Welinganwala. In that case it makes no sense to redirect. That’s my issue here.

All of these Sri Lankan “village” articles that Ser Nicolao created back in 2008-9 have the same issue: he went through GNS (or a similar database)making an article about every listing in it at a rate of hundreds in a day. He put a link to the Sri Lankan government website on each article but that clearly wasn’t the source used as there’s nothing on it about this. However, GNS is based on military or colonial-era maps from the 1940’s-60’s or earlier, and not very accurate, especially for whether something was populated or not. Location data was then added which was of even lower reliability.

Some of these places exist (and whenever I find they exist I usually leave them alone). Some exist but are duplicates (I normally just redirect those). Many just don’t exist as villages and it is senseless to keep them. FOARP (talk) 06:19, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfurboy:, @JoelleJay: as you are into removing unnotable articles: I started looking at gymnastics pages, and you might take a look at the 2014 Acrobatic Gymnastics World Championships. Stubs are created of almost every gymnast with a trivial mention in 1 primary source. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 22:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2025).

Administrator changes

Rusalkii

NaomiAmethyst (overlooked last month)

• Master Jay
• Orderinchaos
• Roger Davies
• Tinucherian

Interface administrator changes

Galobtter

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, administrator elections were permanently authorized on a five-month schedule. The next election will be scheduled soon; see Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections for more information. This is an alternate process to the RfA process and does not replace the latter.
• An RfC was closed with consensus to allow editors to opt-out of seeing "sticky decorative elements". Such elements should now be wrapped in {{sticky decoration wrapper}}. Editors who wish to opt out can follow the instructions at WP:STICKYDECO.
• An RfC has resulted in a broad prohibition on the use of AI-generated images in articles. A few common-sense exceptions are recognized.

Miscellaneous

• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in May 2025 to reduce the backlog of articles in the new pages feed. Sign up here to participate!

---