Jump to content

User talk:Toadspike/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Taleb Abdulmohsen

you cannot delete it because the choice to keep or delete this article has not reached consensus. HourglassTears (talk) 06:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion has reached a consensus to keep the article, which means it will not be deleted. You need not worry that I will delete it. Toadspike [Talk] 11:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Question from Sonu Singh Hero (20:44, 9 January 2025)

How to Add My Self Details --Sonu Singh Hero (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

ANI

As per previous discussions, issues with Bgsu98 have been brought to ANI by another editor here, and I've provided some concrete examples of my previous assertions. JTtheOG (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, this one will be a doozy but quite relevant to me. That said, getting a ping with the heading "ANI" really scared the crap out of me. Toadspike [Talk] 22:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Oh man, my sincerest apologies hehe. I don't think I fully thought that one through. JTtheOG (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

AFD/2000 Swiss Figure Skating Championships

Hello... I saw your comment at ANI and appreciate your insight. I just wanted to explain the rationale for this particular nomination which you felt was overwhelming. It was the latest (and actually, the last) in a series of bulk nominations of individual competition articles that I proposed. You can probably find earlier examples that have already gone through (Estonia, Finland, South Africa, Latvia, etc.). The ideal outcome for these would have been redirected to the parent articles. You see, I had attempted to just redirect the articles for the Swedish Championships a few weeks ago, and was absolutely attacked, accused of being "sneaky", etc., when the same process had been used a few years ago at the Spanish and Romanian Championships. That's why they all went to AFD, so they would all be official, but I also put in the nomination that I recommended redirect. In fact, if you want to endorse the redirect option, that would be very helpful. That way, the article histories are preserved just in case, but most of these particular competitions lack the participants and numbers to be particularly notable. Please let me know if I can help any more in explaining my rationale. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining the context – I check the Switzerland deletion sorting list, so hadn't seen any of the other noms. I tried doing some searches at e-newspaperarchives.ch but this competition has a really odd name that generates lots of false positives, and the many years nominated at once doesn't help. I am busy IRL so may not get around to doing a full source check, though if the result is to redirect then there's no rush, I can re-create and improve any years for which I find sources if needed. Toadspike [Talk] 13:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
The overall event – the Swiss Figure Skating Championships – is very notable. The individual year's events are, sadly, not so much. As much as I love Switzerland, they just don't have the depth of competition or volume of notable skaters to make a particular year's championship event notable. Not every discipline is always contested, sometimes there aren't enough skaters to award bronze (or in some cases, silver) medals, and so on. The idea was to consolidate everything into the parent article, where the medalists are listed. If someone is interested in how Skater X did, that skater's article will provide their scores and such. Only a handful of countries (the U.S., Canada, Japan, South Korea, Russia, France, Germany, Italy, and maybe a few others) have championship events worth individual yearly articles (IMO). Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Question from Macarane on User talk:41.116.46.20 (03:55, 20 January 2025)

Hello what do I need to start doing IT? --Macarane (talk) 03:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@Macarane What kind of IT would you like to do? I'm not super knowledgeable about this, but I believe most coding on Wikipedia is done with Lua, maybe that page has some pointers for you? Toadspike [Talk] 08:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Philippine jade culture cleanup

Following up here absent a better location, hope that's okay. Given the AfD, it seems likely that it's worth cleaning up other mentions before relevant data gets lost in the noise. Based on the post-AfD delinkings, issues may exist at Template:Neolithic, Template:Former and present states in the Philippines, Template:History of the Philippines, Prehistory of the Philippines, Philippines–Vietnam relations, Philippines–Thailand relations, Economic history of Taiwan, Prehistory of Taiwan, Lingling-o, Xitu, Brunei–Philippines relations, 21st Century Maritime Silk Road, Malaysia–Philippines relations, Timeline of maritime migration and exploration, Batangas, Ancient history, History of Indonesia, History of Thailand, Taiwan, Malaysia, Template:Ancient seafaring/sandbox, Maritime timeline, Timeline of international trade, Template:Ancient seafaring, and Template:History of the Philippines/sandbox. Based on your research, is it the concept of a "maritime jade road" as a whole questionable, or just the specific question of a distinct Philippine "jade culture"? CMD (talk) 13:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@CMD Thanks for compiling this list. The term "Philippine jade culture" is, as far as I see, entirely unverified to this day. However, as the IP pointed out, some parts of the article are based on real archeological finds in Taiwan and the Philippines, and some of these sites/finds might be notable (such as lingling-o). It is only the grossly exaggerated importance of this topic/connection and the specific phrase "Philippine jade culture" that is invented.
I believe the entire concept of a "maritime jade road" is questionable, but I have not done as thorough a search here. The evidence I presented at the AfD is conclusive in showing that before it was spammed all over Wikipedia in 2021 there were zero sources on this term, scholarly or otherwise. I fear that any coverage from afterwards may be citogenesis, but I have not yet done a thorough check of post-2021 sourcing, so I'm not sure. It might be that the spammers were researchers promoting some soon-to-be-published idea that has since gained scholarly consensus. (Unlikely, but I haven't checked.)
I am currently fairly busy in real life over the next two weeks, but I hope to write up a well-sourced, verifiable replacement for the "maritime jade road" boilerplate that was dropped all over the wiki, before systematically replacing all mentions of the term, or removing them if undue. This will require some research, though, and my offwiki commitments mean I will likely only get around to this by early February. If you are able to do this before then I will be very grateful. Toadspike [Talk] 22:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm very much not sold on a liberal use of very recent academic scholarship which has not had time to be tested well within academia. There are repeated issues with for example recent genetic history studies being added to Philippine-related articles in a somewhat overinterpreted fashion. In other Philippine news an ongoing court case is undermining the very core of a couple of articles I've written and I'm procrastinating from addressing this in my en.wiki-related time. At a quick google scholar search "maritime jade road" brings up literally 8 hits, all of which seem to be incidental background mentions, one of which is even "I came across a mention of a Maritime Jade Road that dates back to 3000 bce. I would have liked to learn more about this ancient jade trading route, but it was not covered further in the following chapters." CMD (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I was not aware that there were issues with scholarly sources in this field, that's good to know. I guess I'll just remove all mentions of this concept without replacement, then. Toadspike [Talk] 09:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Issues with the use on en.wiki certainly. There has been an editor going on a massive cleanup spree over the past few weeks, thankfully. I would suggest that if there is something to add, it won't come without the complete ground-up replacement you mention. CMD (talk) 12:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Cleared the templates. The Philippines-X relations articles seem to be mentions of "Jade artifacts manufactured in the Philippines using raw Jade from Taiwan were exported to X" with offline sources, I'll have another look around but based on the discussions it might be best to remove, and readd if a better summary can be developed. CMD (talk) 10:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Query re page move procedure

Just a quick query. I'm not particularly familiar with the procedure here. Given that you've contested my Astronomical catalog page move,

  • is the next step for me to transfer the request to the talk page, and if so,
  • does using the discuss button copy the existing discussion over to there, or will I be effectively starting afresh?

The instructions on the technical requests page don't seem necessarily to match what I see people doing there, namely leaving the requests there for open discussion, so I thought I'd ask. Thanks in advance. Musiconeologist (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Musiconeologist Yes, clicking the "discuss" link after your request will automatically open a move discussion for you. Requests "left for open discussion" on the Technical Requests page will not result in moves unless a move discussion (RM) is opened on the article talk page – after a few days contested requests get archived automatically. Toadspike [Talk] 08:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, Toadspike. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:07, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks :)

Hi Toadspike, it was a good question, thanks for asking – and to Sennecaster for noticing. I had already thought about this ([1]) but it was lost in implementation. 🙂 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Question from KLDrin (22:21, 30 January 2025)

How can I change the map image on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower_Garden_Banks_National_Marine_Sanctuary page? 

It's in an Info Box that says I do not have permission, but the map is out of date. --KLDrin (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
@KLDrin Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you'll stick around. That article is not protected, so it shouldn't require any special permissions to edit. The map image itself is on Wikimedia Commons here. If you want to replace it with a different image, I suggest you find one that complies with the Commons license requirements (basically, a public domain or Creative Commons-licensed image) and upload it at commons:Special:UploadWizard. Then, you can add it to the infobox by replacing | photo = Flower Gardens NMS map.jpg in the infobox code with the name of the new file. Toadspike [Talk] 22:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. That worked. KLDrin (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

DYK for Julier Pass

On 4 February 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Julier Pass, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the peak of the Julier Pass, 2,284 metres (7,493 ft) above sea level, is flanked by two ancient Roman columns (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Julier Pass. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Julier Pass), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Hook update
Your hook reached 30,833 views (1,284.7 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of February 2025 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Question from Ashish Dataintelo (09:37, 14 February 2025)

Hello Mentor,

Waned to create pages of my Organization Dataintelo. Please help me out for this. --Ashish Dataintelo (talk) 09:37, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

@Ashish Dataintelo Please read this guide. You need to be careful, as you have a conflict of interest, which will make it difficult to write a neutral article about your organization. Toadspike [Talk] 18:09, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Question from Ousmaneabubakar1 on Wikipedia:Sandbox (21:09, 15 February 2025)

How create article? --Ousmaneabubakar1 (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

@Ousmaneabubakar1 See Your first article for the full instructions. For the short answer, find three good sources about the topic, then create a draft article by going through the steps at the article wizard. Toadspike [Talk] 22:25, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Question from Shree Abhiram Krupa (08:11, 16 February 2025)

How can I put an information about A philosopher --Shree Abhiram Krupa (talk) 08:11, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

@Shree Abhiram Krupa Go to the philosopher's article and click "Edit" in the top right corner of your screen. Toadspike [Talk] 12:35, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Question from Grostaylor (12:43, 24 February 2025)

Hello. Just wanted to add The Peabody to dances of the 40’s. --Grostaylor (talk) 12:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Grostaylor, and welcome to Wikipedia! It doesn't look like we have a list of dances of the 1940s, nor does it look like we have a category for them. We only have an entry at List of dances#P. So, if you have information about the Peabody you would like to add, I suggest you add it to the article, Peabody (dance). Toadspike [Talk] 15:07, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

WikiCup 2025 March newsletter

The first round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 26 February. As a reminder, we are no longer disqualifying the lowest-scoring contestants; everyone who competed in round 1 will advance to round 2 unless they have withdrawn or been banned from Wikipedia. Instead, the contestants with the highest round-point totals now receive tournament points at the end of each round. Unlike the round points in the main WikiCup table, which are reset at the end of each round, tournament points are carried over between rounds and can only be earned if a competitor is among the top 16 round-point scorers. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far.

Round 1 was very competitive compared with previous years; two contestants scored more than 1,000 round points, and the top 16 contestants all scored more than 500 round points. The following competitors scored more than 800 round points:

The full scores for round 1 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 18 featured articles, 26 featured lists, 1 featured-topic article, 197 good articles, 38 good-topic articles and more than 100 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 23 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 550 reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after 26 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2, which begins on 1 March. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Question from Stoica.IPO (18:46, 4 March 2025)

Hi , I'm trying to put correct information about my organization and every time I try to delete the false information that I have proof , I'm roll back by some users and I'm trying to secure the page to not let them vandalize our image that has nothing to do with what they are putting --Stoica.IPO (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Your article must be about a notable topic and based on reliable sources. Also, since you have a conflict of interest with the company you work for, you should create a draft and submit it to articles for creation for someone else to review your work. Toadspike [Talk] 19:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from NavinaChhabria (19:33, 6 March 2025)

How do I submit my article for review? I've already published. Can you clarify the process? --NavinaChhabria (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

@NavinaChhabria I have added a template to the article that allows you to submit it to Articles for Creation for review. If you would like to submit it, click the blue button that says "Submit the draft for review!". I will note, however, that your article relies overly on primary sources, and I recommend finding more secondary sources to demonstrate notability. You also appear to have a conflict of interest, which can make writing an unbiased article challenging. Toadspike [Talk] 07:16, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive

Could you please update Wikipedia:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/January 2025 so that I can tally up your total points? Thanks! IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 18:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

@IntentionallyDense Thanks for the reminder, should be good now. Toadspike [Talk] 20:09, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from LEDDallas (20:39, 12 March 2025)

When uploading photos on Commons, how do I find out which detailed license the photos fall under? I know they're free-use but I don't know what exact license they have. --LEDDallas (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

@LEDDallas If you're uploading photos you took yourself, you can choose what license you would like to release them under. If you are uploading photos originally made by others, such as photos from other websites or scans of books, then you must make sure that either: 1. the copyright is expired, or 2. the photos are under a free license. If you have a link to the image you're uploading, I can explain in more detail. Toadspike [Talk] 21:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
This is the online archive I'm getting my photos from-
https://untd.smugmug.com/ LEDDallas (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
I don't see any copyright notice for the images there, so I assume the copyright still belongs to the photographer or university. Unless you have evidence of a free license, these unfortunately cannot be uploaded to Commons. If you are affiliated with the university or know the photographer/copyright holder, you can ask them to release them under a free license by following the procedure at commons:COM:VRT/CONSENT. Toadspike [Talk] 13:25, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
@LEDDallas I forgot to ping you, sorry. Toadspike [Talk] 13:25, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from Tahira Sultan (22:43, 14 March 2025)

Hello How do I create a new wikipedia page? --Tahira Sultan (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@Tahira Sultan See WP:Your first article. Let me know if you have any specific questions. Toadspike [Talk] 12:59, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Martin Pfister

On 15 March 2025, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Martin Pfister, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. —Bagumba (talk) 23:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from Brz1937 (04:12, 21 March 2025)

hello, how can i publish an article --Brz1937 (talk) 04:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Brz1937 and welcome to Wikipedia! You can find some instructions at WP:Your first article. If you need any more help with specific parts of the process, please come back here and ask! Toadspike [Talk] 06:47, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

WP:RX#Excerpt from book held mainly by German libraries

Hello, Toadspike. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Worldbruce (talk) 12:00, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from Таня Кирим (21:20, 24 March 2025)

Здравствуйте как написать о себе биографию ? Я певица Таня Кирим --Таня Кирим (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

@Таня Кирим You should not write an article about yourself because you have a strong conflict of interest. Toadspike [Talk] 08:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Help talk:IPA/Standard German on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Question from Destiny495 (23:54, 6 April 2025)

How do I create an article --Destiny495 (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

@Destiny495 WP:Your first article has some advice for you. If you have any questions about specific steps in the process, please feel free to come back here and ask me. Toadspike [Talk] 07:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

NPOL interpretations

Hi! I noticed a message you left at @SportingFlyer's talk page (courtesy ping as they may wish to contribute) - there's definitely a range of opinions regarding the applicability of NPOL's presumed notability to political appointees serving in non-parliamentary executive roles. However, I'd say there's a rough community consensus that in democratic presidential systems appointees to cabinets are generally considered to have NPOL's presumed notability ... but there's roles that sit outside that which would still be accorded presumed notability; eg US state attorneys general do not sit in a US governor's cabinet and governors at state/province level in Commonwealth countries with federal systems (who act as representatives of the head of state). I mentioned this at my RfA, but I think this (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Schimmer) is a useful AfD discussion around the application of a presumed notability threshold for a political appointee. Judicial roles are somewhat clearer and match with courts that have a national or state level jurisdiction. I'm only aware of one cabinet-level appointee at national level not accorded presumed notability in an AfD discussion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qadhi Saeed Almurooshid), and given the nature of that country and the fact that the role is effectively advisory rather than actually exercising power, it's an exception that I would say proves the rule. Goldsztajn (talk) 02:44, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Goldsztajn, I've appreciated your work at AfD lately. This, for instance, was a very good close, as it requires some knowledge and more courage to not relist.
Back to the topic, I'll admit that when I wrote that message I was a bit emotional and it came out as a POINTy rant. I appreciated SportingFlyer's polite response, especially I am arguing against that certain political appointees to non-legislative roles, especially at non-federal levels, will not necessarily meet GNG, and therefore should not be a part of NPOL. (I think the word "against" is meant to be removed.) This is a reasonable perspective, and it's the kind of debate that we'll naturally always have around our GNG-overriding SNGs, like NATH and NMUSIC.
The first AfD you linked is indeed illustrative of the challenge of determining where we draw the line and what positions we consider automatically notable. A dogmatic interpretation of "statewide office" makes every civil servant notable, while a dogmatic exclusion of appointed positions makes the various posts and people I listed on SportingFlyer's talk page not notable; neither extreme is desirable. Toadspike [Talk] 09:13, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Question from Senemtk (18:01, 5 April 2025)

Hi, I am writing a page that has not been accepted yet, but my mistake was mentioning that I have a conflict of interest, which I do not. Could you please guide me on how to correct that claim? Thanks! --Senemtk (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

@Senemtk I don't see where you said that you have a conflict of interest (COI). Regardless, the standards for articles to be accepted are the same for editors with and without a COI, so it shouldn't really matter. Toadspike [Talk] 13:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Question from LEDDallas (17:44, 7 April 2025)

Hi, I'm having trouble figuring out how to change the logo on a Template: infobox university. The logo is already on Commons but whenever I try to insert the new one it comes out huge. --LEDDallas (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

@LEDDallas Looking at your contributions, it looks like you've figured it out. Feel free to come back if you have other questions. Toadspike [Talk] 13:29, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Science and technology in Switzerland article

@Toadspike, wow, thanks for the super quick and thoughtful reply on the project page. I'll keep working on expanding the AI section for now and revisit a split later if it grows enough. HerBauhaus (talk) 10:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

@HerBauhaus Sorry that I didn't reply earlier – I was away from Wikipedia for a few days. Thank you for your kind words. If you have any similar questions or need access to Swiss sources (like paywalled news articles), let me know and I will try to help. Toadspike [Talk] 15:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

European Film Actor School

I linked the German version via an expand tag. Please add the sources to the article. We can clean up later. Bearian (talk) 16:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I only saw this after I was nearly done with my talk page message. I will do my best to expand it with the sources I've got. Toadspike [Talk] 16:41, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Hey there! I saw your recent feedback on one of the FL candidates and I'm glad to see I wasn't the only one who had difficulty with the formatting of the table. Anyway, I currently have this article up for FL nomination – Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/World Figure Skating Championships/archive1 – that has not received much feedback. If you have some time and would be willing to offer any feedback, it would be appreciated. Thank you so much! Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:56, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, you said you found sources on Swissbox regarding Brandhärd. I don't seem to have access to the platform, if it's not difficult can you drop a couple of them, plus my charts link, in the external links. It would settle the question of notability (marked since 2011!). Good day! LastJabberwocky (talk) 09:49, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

@LastJabberwocky It seems I haven't responded to this yet, my apologies. I've gone back to find some sources with sigcov: [2][3][4][5] I hope this is enough to convince you that they meet the GNG. Toadspike [Talk] 10:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

German-to-English Translation Request For Silvio Gesell Article

Hello Toadspike. I saw you listed here and I was wondering if you'd be willing to help translate the German Wikipedia article on Silvio Gesell or de:Freiwirtschaft into English? In my opinion, Gesell has fascinating and groundbreaking ideas on economics, and I wish that he was more well known in the Anglosphere. Thanks in advance. Zero Contradictions (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

@Zero Contradictions Those look like really hefty articles...thanks for asking, but I think I don't have the capacity for this right now. I might come back to it in future, but no guarantees. Toadspike [Talk] 11:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Geographic names

Toadspike(like the handle): I am a native of Hayward, Freeborn County, Minnesota. My issue is with the naming of Hayward. The geographical references to the namesake of Hayward incorrectly, my researched opinion, refers to a David Hayward. I maintain that this is incorrect. My research indicates the namesake is George S. Hayward. The Freeborn County Historical Museum staff concurs with me. Researching the county records reveals no reference to a David Hayward ever living or owning property in Freeborn County. The same research has multiple references to George S. Hayward living and owning property in the county and the township. Additionally, historical records indicate the namesake originally arrived in the mid 1850's from Postville, IA. Postville, IA has no records of a David Hayward. Concurrently, all records from Postville, IA do indicate a connection with George S. Hayward. Additionally, historical records indicate that Mr. Hayward moved to California and died as a result of an accident in 1869. There is no record of a David Hayward passing in California at that date. However, there is a cemetery in Colusa County, CA with George S. Hayward. This fits perfectly with all previous accounts. My belief is the confusion originated when George S. Hayward and David Judson concluded a real estate transaction and somehow a previous researcher inadvertently transpose the names.

I would like to see the error corrected and the source documents reflect the same.


Gary Skaar Garyskaar (talk) 15:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Garyskaar Hi Gary! Thanks for writing to me. I'm happy to help get this fixed, but I'll need some sources I can cite – even though I believe you, I can't just edit the page and say "Gary said so". If you don't have any books or research papers (secondary sources) that say this explicitly, could you get the museum to put something on their website? Toadspike [Talk] 17:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
Good morning. Thank you for your timely response. Here is the correct reference you requested;
"History of Freeborn County" Franklin Curtiss-Wedge, 1911. pg. 84.
"Hayward. This town takes its name from Geo. Hayward the prominent citizen of the early days." ..... Garyskaar (talk) 12:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the source, I have made the edit [6]. Toadspike [Talk] 13:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Thank you! I'm 82 years old and this has been bugging me for years. Now I can rest in peace, thanks to you. Sincerely, Gary (Gerhard E. Skaar) Garyskaar (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Anthony Stephen (dog trainer)

@Toadspike I never thought the page (Anthony Stephen (dog trainer) got deleted so fast, why is the other GNG is not recognized? Spanizh fly (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@Toadspike why not use it as stub? Spanizh fly (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia requires all article subjects to be notable. If the subject is not notable, we don't have an article – not even a stub. Being "notable" means something very specific on Wikipedia: it means that we have enough high-quality sources to write an article. The basic requirement for those sources is summarized at WP:42 – that is the standard by which I and others judged the sources in that discussion. Toadspike [Talk] 19:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/World Figure Skating Championships/archive1

Good Evening! Please let me know when you have a chance to examine the improvements I made to this article per your feedback and suggestions. Thank you so much! Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:14, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@Bgsu98 Sorry for dropping that – I do plan to get back to it, but I keep getting distracted. I was hoping to review the remaining prose section before wrapping up my review. I will try to do this tomorrow. Toadspike [Talk] 22:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Thank you; I appreciate your time! Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

WikiCup 2025 May newsletter

The second round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 28 April at 23:59 UTC. To reiterate what we said in the previous newsletter, we are no longer disqualifying contestants based on how many points (now known as round points) they received. Instead, the contestants with the highest round-point totals now receive tournament points at the end of each round. These tournament points are carried over between rounds, and can only be earned if a competitor is among the top 16 round-point scorers at the end of each round. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far. Everyone who competed in round 2 will advance to round 3 unless they have withdrawn or been banned.

Round 2 was quite competitive. Four contestants scored more than 1,000 round points, and eight scored more than 500 points (including one who has withdrawn). The following competitors scored at least 800 points:

In addition, we would like to recognize Generalissima (submissions) for her efforts; she scored 801 round points but withdrew before the end of the round.

The full scores for round 2 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 13 featured articles, 20 featured lists, 4 featured-topic articles, 138 good articles, 7 good-topic articles, and more than 100 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 19 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 300 reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed in Round 3. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

AGF, please

It seems you may be misunderstanding me. Framing my good-faith, instructive advice to a new editor to use best practices as “casting aspersions”!, then re-framing that with a non-apology apology and doubling down on your original accusation with a scolding attached. I certainly did not “take a shot at the nominator’s character/conduct to advance [my] opinion on the deletion debate”. Wow, just wow.

BTW, I am pretty sure that an AfD nominator doesn’t need to be pinged, as the page is already on their watchlist, and they will likely get a notification if that preference is selected. Is there something else you would like to share? Netherzone (talk) 14:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

@Netherzone Yes, I know you didn't do any of those things. I was trying to explain what prompted my original concern. It was not my intent to double down or accuse you of anything. When I said "it is easy to misconstrue this kind of comment", I meant "this is how I misconstrued your comment"; I was admitting my own mistake, not accusing you of making one. If anything, this exchange has made clear how difficult it is to judge a person's intent from what they write on the Internet.
Many editors, including me, rarely or never check their watchlist. It's also not possible to subscribe to AfD pages easily. There's a good chance the nominator doesn't know how to find this discussion again (via AfD Stats or their contribs); since they nominated using an automated tool, they may not even know the discussion exists. (WormEater13, if you are reading this, I mean no offense.) There are also experienced editors who deliberately "fire and forget"/COAL at AfD, like NPPers simply looking to mark a page as reviewed and move on.
If you would like to teach WormEater13 how to do a good BEFORE search, which I think is a good idea, I highly recommend heading over to their user talk – it looks like they are very friendly and receptive to feedback. Toadspike [Talk] 15:11, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Thank you kindly for the job recommendation, but I must decline. Acting on your own good idea might be something you enjoy. Regards, Netherzone (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Alright then, I'll go let them know. Toadspike [Talk] 16:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Noting for posterity that I have chosen not to post on WormEater13's talk page because their subsequent AfD activity has convinced me that they are doing very well already without my help. Toadspike [Talk] 18:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Scratch that – I decided to leave some tips after all, not least because they seem to be unaware that they have TWL access. Toadspike [Talk] 12:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Zürcher Vokalisten AfD nomination withdrawn :D

Hello @Toadspike -- it's @AnonymousScholar49. On April 24th, I nominated Zürcher Vokalisten for deletion. I have now closed that discussion, deciding to keep. I'm on here to thank you for your hard work, research, and subject matter expertise; you found a whole bunch of sources and cleaned up the article, and per WP:HEY, I was convinced by your work. good stuff AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 01:10, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, @AnonymousScholar49. I appreciate you bringing the article to my attention by nominating it for AfD. I watch WP:DSCH closely because I am fortunate to have access to some handy Swiss sources and I am always happy when I'm able to put them to good use. Best, Toadspike [Talk] 05:42, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Sultan ul Arifeen Hazrat Syed Rakhyal Shah Sufi Al Qadri

You appear to have reverted some valid changes of mind. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I've reverted that - @Toadspike, was this an error? CoconutOctopus talk 17:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
@Phil Bridger@CoconutOctopus Thanks for catching that – I noticed a small mistake in my relist notice, which I had to add manually due to a sock relisting the discussion and only getting partially reverted. I left to do some cooking right after that edit, so I'm only seeing this now. I'm very sorry about it. Toadspike [Talk] 17:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
(I must've accidentally edited an old revision of the page, not the newest one? No idea how that happened without me getting an edit conflict warning.) Toadspike [Talk] 18:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Don't worry about it. I'm off to cook the dinner myself now. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

NAC on Information Security Forum

I'd appreciate it if you would consider reverting your no consensus close on [[7]]. Per WP:NACD, "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins", which is the case here. Let'srun (talk) 20:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

@Let'srun I'm going to reopen this discussion, but I genuinely don't think this is a close call – it's as obvious a no-consensus as I've ever seen.
We currently have, by my count, 44 AfDs overdue for closing; we do not have enough admins closing AfDs at the moment (I have just posted at WP:AN asking for more admins to help out). So, when you make requests like this, please consider whether the odds of getting a different outcome are worth the costs of bogging down the process (WP:NOTBURO). Toadspike [Talk] 05:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
I would have relisted the discussion, as it had only been relisted twice. Since an admin has now closed the discussion, I will not pursue the matter further at this time, but I'd encourage you to avoid closing AfD's as no consensus in the future and either let an admin make the call or relist the discussion, per WP:NACD. Let'srun (talk) 19:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

AI

I was led to Wiki trying to sign up for an AI search app. Caroleojanpera (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

@Caroleojanpera Wikipedia does not have any AI search apps. I assume the app sent you here to read our explanations of terminology, not for any mandatory part of the sign-up process. However, if you want to stick around as an editor, we would love to have you! Help:Introduction has some guidance for that. Toadspike [Talk] 06:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teresa Harding (2nd nomination)

Hello, following a 2024 AfD discussion that closed as "redirect", Teresa Harding has been recreated and has been renominated for a redirect. The discussion is taking place here. I am notifying all participants in the earlier discussion. Thanks! Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me! I'm surprised to see this is an article I nominated, too. Toadspike [Talk] 15:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Church Fathers#Requested move 11 April 2025

Hi, your close would state: There is a clear consensus that "Church Fathers" is a proper name for the purposes of WP:NCCAPS and should be capitalized. Could you please be more specific as to where the strength of argument lies to reach such a conclusion, viewing the evidence and arguments through the lens of WP:NCCAPS or any other P&G relevant to determining what is a proper name that would be capitalised on WP. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Noting that I have read the above, but I am fairly busy at the moment and might only be able to reply by tomorrow. Toadspike [Talk] 15:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Given the comments there seems no other way of closing the discussion, many editors recognized the WP:COMMONSENSE of keeping the uppercasing of this familiar and historically grouping of a set number of individuals who shaped the Christian religion. Thanks for a good close. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
@Cinderella157 NCCAPS, in its first, bolded sentence, tells us to use sentence case, unless the title is a proper name. This caveat is explained, in its second sentence, as unless the title phrase is a proper name that would always occur capitalized, even mid-sentence. There is, to my knowledge, currently no project-wide consensus on what "would always occur capitalized, even mid-sentence" means. One interpretation, which I believe you share, is that "always capitalized" means "capitalized in all sources". Another interpretation, expressed by many other participants in this RM, is that "always capitalized" means most sources capitalize the name throughout the source's text; this view emphasizes the grammatical definition of "proper name". The disagreement on "where to draw the line" came up in a recent Village Pump discussion (which I participated in); though not formally closed, it seems folks broadly agree that "always" in NCCAPS does not literally means "always". I only say all this to emphasize that neither interpretation is, at the moment, considered so indisputably contrary to our naming conventions that I can disregard it as an RM closer. Thus, my close must reflect the interpretation of the RM participants.
Editors in favor of the move, including you, presented evidence (Ngrams, Google Scholar results) to justify the move. Most other editors were not persuaded, for two broad reasons: 1. Many offered different interpretations of the evidence or disputed the accuracy of your methodology. 2. Editors opposing the move emphasized "proper name" as their standard for capitalization, disagreeing with the interpretation of "would always occur capitalized" as meaning "is capitalized in all sources". Both of these are reasononable differences of opinion. They are not arguments that I, as a closer, can discount as cut-and-dry disregard for naming conventions. It is not my duty as closer to investigate the evidence myself and come to my own conclusions about its strength (unless I had reason to think the evidence was being presented dishonestly, which I did not). It is also not for me to determine how NCCAPS should be interpreted. There were some arguments on both sides that I downweighted or discounted as not based on evidence or guidelines, but these were just a handful; this still left more than twice as many editors opposing the move as supporting it with reasonable arguments, which is not a margin I can disregard in good faith as a closer without clearly supervoting.
Also, in case there was any doubt, my reminder about our civility policy was not directed at you.
Best, Toadspike [Talk] 15:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion you refer to at recent Village Pump discussion was "moved" from Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization) without including the earlier comments. The OP of the initial discussion questioned the semantics of always rather than the spirit and intent of the guidance or how it is understood linguistically.[8] The sentence from WP:NCCAPS For multiword page titles, one should leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper name that would always occur capitalized, even mid-sentence) is a truism and I see no one actually arguing against the truth of the statement. The corollary of this is ipso facto also a truism. WP:P&G represents the consensus of the broader community and the prevailing P&G on capitalisation and capitalisation of article titles (ie not just NCCAPS) has a history of long term stability. Consensus is not perfect agreement, as we see from the discussion you link. As you noted in your comment there, Wikipedia prefers to minimize capitalization, so the threshold cannot be 50%+1 of sources, it has to be a large majority [emphasis added]. This much is a settled matter.

You would indicate this view emphasizes the grammatical definition of "proper name". As something of a linguist, I think you would be aware that most European languages (with the notable exception of German) are quite rigorous in the application of capitalisation. They do not capitalise what are othererwise proper nouns when used attributively or adjectival forms of proper nouns. English does this. In English, it is also common to use capitalisation to denote significance, importance or for terms of art, where a term of art is an otherwise descriptive noun phrase that is given to have a particular meaning in a particular context.[9][10] These other uses of capitalisation explain a propensity to capitalise in specialist writing per WP:SSF. These other uses of capitalisation are not proper names, though In English, there is a common false perception of equivalence between what is a proper name and the orthography of capitalisation. This leads to a somewhat circular argument: We capitalise proper names therefore what we [might] capitalise are proper names. However, per MOS:SIGNIFCAPS, we do not capitalise for emphasis, distinction, importance or to denote a term of art. In the RM, there is an argument that Church Fathers (the capitalised form) has a semantic meaning different from the lowercase form. We also see comments: Clearly a proper noun distinguishing members of this group, the Church Fathers are referred to as a distinct group, which specifically applies only to those people who have been collectively recognised as such, and more. All of these arguments indicate capitalisation as a term of art that falls to MOS:SIGNIFCAPS - a matter raised in the RM. The argument that "Church fathers" or "church fathers" is non-specific and can mean something very different is not supported by perusal of sources nor was any actual evidence offered that would support this assertion - as raised in rebuttal in the RM.

Many people base their perception of what is a proper name on an incomplete definition and a perception that specificity of referent is a defining property when it is not. Per the RM, specificity of referent can also occur through the use if the definite article (the). Our article on proper name tells us that a proper name is not descriptive, as does the fuller definition here. Church fathers, however capitalised, is a descriptive term made specific through using the definite article. Claiming that because I see it capitalised it must be a proper noun is based on the false premise of equivalence and is logically fallacious. It is because of these general misperceptions that the spirit and intent of the prevailing P&G is to rely on evidence of usage to determine what we capitalise on WP rather than (incomplete) definitions and misinterpretations of what is a proper noun. A consequence is that we also capitalise descriptive names (eg French Revolution) when these are consistently capitalised in sources. No one has asserted (per your above) that NCCAPS tells us to rely on a definition of what is a proper noun|name. No one states a definition by which they would conclude this is a proper name (ie such assertions are unsubstantiated opinion).

Per this comment, I know that you are aware that consensus is determined through the lens of P&G and how WP:RMCIDC and WP:DISCARD apply. The prevailing P&G here requires evidence of usage in sources and a function of the closer is to ensure that any conclusion reached in respect to the evidence is a reasonable representation of the actual evidence. As with many RMs a very large proportion of the comments do not engage with the prevailing P&G or otherwise fall to DISCARD. I would note that the assessment of the type of evidence required here and its assessment is essentially a statistical question.

  • Only one opposer (Chickdat) makes a specific reference to P&G. Even if their view is consistent with the spirit and intent of WP:AT (read as a whole), it still needs to be supported by evidence. Their view does not withstand unrebutted. Even if this view is reasonable Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names states: it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources). The actual evidence presented in this discussion indicates this threshold is not met for the uppercase term.
  • The OP cites NCCAPS and that the term is far from always capped in sources. While MOS:CAPS is not directly, it is directly quoted: consistently capitalized in a substantial majority. There are also comments intended as references to MOS:CAPS: It is far from consistently capped and P&G is telling us that it is not necessary to cap.
  • The raw ngram search here shows 53% capitalised based on two terms or 50% fully capitalised if including Church fathers, which does not support the present title. Capitalisation is based on usage in prose. There is no rebuttal to question this. It is well establisehed that ngrams also capture expected title case uses and overrepresent capitalisation with respect to prose - a matter raised in the RM and not disputed. Ngrams can be contexturalised to better capture prose usage. Randy presented this ngram for the church fathers. However, this does not reasonably exclude expected title case for tiles of references cited in sources - a matter raised in the RM. This ngram, contexturalising usage indicates a majority lowercase across the majority of examples. This ngram was also offered in rebuttal.
  • One editor would state: The use of an N-gram here is deeply methodologically flawed as there are other circumstances in which those two words could be comfortably paired and the capitalized form is standard in academic literature to the best of my knowledge. And another: The use of an N-gram here is deeply methodologically flawed as there are other circumstances in which those two words could be comfortably paired and the capitalized form is standard in academic literature to the best of my knowledge. "Church fathers" or "church fathers" is non-specific and can mean something very different. The argument is that there is a semantic difference between the capitalised and uncapitalised form and that ngrams do not distingush the semantic difference. Both of these are premises made without substantiation (ie they are opinions). The rebuttal offered is based on actual google scholar evidence where the proportion of upper and lowercase is near equal and there is no evidence that church fathers (lowercase) refers to any other group other than those which are the subject of the article. Particular examples were offered and it was alleged that these were cherry picked. The response in rebuttal was: Pick and examine as many of the many lowercase examples in google scholar as you wish. They will not bare out your assertion that lowercase is a different topic. No example was produced to contradict this. The assertion that lowercase is a different topic is unsubstantiated (opinion). The opinion that lowercase is a different topic is reasonably shown to be false (disproven) by examination of actual evidence.
  • It is one thing to dispute evidence but the basis for disputation must be substantiated if it is to carry weight.
  • A simple google search includes many unreliable sources. It is not an appropriate sample consistent with P&G.
  • As this is essentially a statistical question where the terms are in near equal proportions, are the two statistically different? Does 53% actually represent a majority or is it statistically too close to call? This is not an issue if one acknowledges that the consensus of the community is that it has to be a large majority before we apply capitalisation. As stated in the OP of the RM, what we are dealing with is is far from always capped in sources and we are not splitting hairs over whether this comes even close to a threshold of always either semantically or linguistically.
  • Broad statements like Modern academic literature utilizes the capitalized form often enough are personal opinions (ie unsubstantiated) as to what modern academic literature actually does, as is the opinion that it is often enough.
  • WP:OTHERCONTENT arguments (eg Founding Fathers) only carry weight if they are directly comparable and they are shown to represent best practice. This was not established. It was also rebutted in that there is no evidence that this represents best practice. While Randy presents an ngram for Fathers of the Church, this is not the title being discussed.

Your close does not appear to have been made through the lens of the prevailing P&G but by adopting a definition based argument which is not consistent with the spirit and intent of the prevailing P&G or actual evidence. Furthermore, your comment suggests an alternative view of NCCAPS which was not made in argument. Togeather, this could reasonably be seen as supervoting. It is also disappointing that you do not appear to have acted in accordance with the principles you have espoused elsewhere and which are consistent with how a closer is to determine consensus.

I apologise for the length but a detailed analysis requires detail. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:11, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Good lord, this is a lot. Yes, my close here may seem to contradict principles I've previously espoused elsewhere. I could try to thread the needle and explain in broad principles why they actually don't contradict, but in short: See boldface below and I disagree that Pbritti and Warrenmck's comments can be discounted.
In a situation like this, it is not possible for human editors to review and cite all of the millions of results on, say, Google Scholar, so I view arguments like "Modern academic literature utilizes the capitalized form often enough" as acceptable. You will counter with "but Ngrams", and I will say that the N-grams faced as much criticism as support and I cannot unilaterally rule that there was consensus that the N-grams are good evidence in favor of the move when there wasn't. Even if I know they are good evidence.
You are probably frustrated, but lets look at this the other way. What evidence would I have in favor of a move? Some N-grams that people disagreed with? A few results, of millions, on Google Scholar? All of this evidence was objected to in the discussion, and I have to close based on the discussion of the evidence, not the evidence itself.
I really would not mind if you took this to MRV; I would be interested to hear their opinions on the close. I might also consider overturning to "no consensus". Regardless, it is still clear to me that there wasn't a consensus to move.
(Also, this RM was a lot better than the MRV you linked: No locked socks, nobody cited the Wikipedia article itself, the OTHERSTUFF arguments were not obviously false, and there were no plain "per user" !votes. I am still not very happy with the quality of arguments, but I have to work with what I've got.) Toadspike [Talk] 10:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Your close was good, acceptable, and followed both the discussion and the guidelines. There was no way to close it any differently, so nothing to be unhappy about (just the opposite, you got it right!). Randy Kryn (talk) 01:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Well, as a general observation on RMs, it would be nice if people focused their arguments more on the sources and less on their personal experience. Toadspike [Talk] 06:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your engagement and taking the time to read my Good lord, this is a lot post. I noted that this is essentially a statistical question to determine the proportion of casing. No, we don't have to trawl through millions of results to do this. We can rely on what is at least a reasonable facsimile of a sample of sources. We can do this by perusing a number of pages from a search of google scholar (or other data bases of sources). It doesn't take much to see that the casing here is in near equal proportions (ie not significantly different) and perusing the snippets also confirms context. Both points are made in the RM and can be verified against the search provided.

An RM is essentially a debate, where arguments are presented and the strengths or weaknesses of those arguments are scutinised by the participants. I get the impression that you view the consensus to be based upon the individual VOTES viewed in isolation from the fuller debate? Where Anglicanus states "Church fathers" or "church fathers" is non-specific and can mean something very different [emphasis added]. This is conjectur, with no evidence to substantiate their opinion. With reference to actual (verifiable) evidence, the premise was shown in debate to be false, while on the otherhand, no actual evidence was presented that would support the conjecture. Consequently, the argument carries no weight. This rebuttal applies equally to other similar claims, such as the argument by Warrenmck about verb forms or Randy's assertion, Of course lowercase is a different topic.

Where Warrenmck states the capitalized form is standard in academic literature to the best of my knowledge [emphasis added] this is clearly unsubstantiated opinion. Pbritti states: Modern academic literature utilizes the capitalized form often enough ... The capitalized form is also certainly the most common form of the name. I am at a loss as to what the bit in the middle means; however, they are expressing an unsubstantiated opinion as to what academic literature does. It cannot be verified. However, if this was a reference to google scholar, then claiming it is standard (consistently done) it is patently false, where the google scholar evidence presented in the debate shows near equal capitalisation.

OTHERCONTENT is closely related to WP:OTHERSTUFF, which more fully captures the spirit and intent of why simply linking to another article as a claim of precedence is not an argument of weight. Simply linking to Founding Fathers was effectively rebutted in a way consistent with OTHERCONTENT and OTHERSTUFF.

I am hard pressed to see any argument made by the opposers that has withstood the scrutiny of debate given how the evidence has been discussed or arguments that have substance when viewed through the lens of the prevailing P&G. Near equal capitalisation in sources is not the WP threshold for capitalisation no matter how one tries to dice it. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Toadspike, for withstanding the walls of text without changing your close. Not everyone does. A move review has been started, which hopefully will endorse your valid and discussion-appropriate close. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:17, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
Thanks for your well-reasoned contributions to AfD as of late. We need more editors like yourself active in the area! Eddie891 Talk Work 09:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Wow, this is an honor! Thank you, Eddie! Toadspike [Talk] 10:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Just an FYI, I added another page to my watchlist recently. :) Eddie891 Talk Work 06:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

RfC Closure at Talk:Forspoken#Follow-up RFC on Japan sales

I implemented the consensus per your closure at Talk:Forspoken#Follow-up RFC on Japan sales; BMWF has since reverted your closure (claiming WP:RFCNEUTRAL) & reverted my edit to the article. While my inclination is to revert & suggest to the editor to follow the steps at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, I'd also like to avoid triggering an edit war over this so thought I would reach out to you on next steps since you closed the RfC. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:03, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

There's nothing to do here. Toadspike closed a stale RFC after consensus was established. BMWF had enough time to vote. They can start a new RFC in the future if they like.2A00:FBC:EEE0:7188:C0AD:258D:91B6:241A (talk) 08:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
Seems it's been sorted out now, thanks. For the record:
  • The RfC wording was neutral – a one-sentence question asking if a specific fact should be included in the lead or not.
  • The RfC had run long enough, with nearly nine days since the last comment at the time of my close.
  • The additional comment posted by BMWF would not have changed the outcome. Toadspike [Talk] 09:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
Thanks! I just wanted to dot the i's in case this went to ANI since the edit war behavior I was worried about to did occur after I pinged you. I'm going to link to this at the talk page just to close the loop. Sariel Xilo (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Editors reverting RfC closure at Talk:Forspoken. Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Request for Review!

I’ve been contributing steadily with 1,100+ edits and 37 live articles created. Before formally requesting autopatrolled rights, I was wondering if you could kindly take a look at my contributions and let me know if I qualify. I’d really appreciate your feedback. Thanks! Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 02:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Question regarding declined font article(s)

Hi Toadspike! I looked at Wikipedia recently because I had finished writing a couple articles about lesser-known typefaces (Ondine, Matrix and Stempel Schneidler). I have noticed that my article regarding Ondine was rejected. As far as I know, there's not many sources online diving deep into this font at all, as it's seldom seen as of recently. Could you please give me some advice as to how I can fix the article to get it approved? I'm new to writing Wikipedia pages, so any help or feedback would be much appreciated. Thanks so much! Esinconis (talk) 03:21, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

@Esinconis Yes, of course, I'd be happy to help. I am busy at the moment, but I will try to find some more sources later. I suspect the font is notable, we just don't have the right sources to prove that yet.
By the way, the draft was declined, not rejected. This means you can resubmit it after it has been improved. Toadspike [Talk] 05:48, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the use of Baidu Baike archives

Hey,

Previously I made a proposal at village pump for Baidu baike references/archives to be un-deprecated to be used as a way to access dead links. May I ask how the proposal is currently going? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

@Thehistorianisaac Hey there. The discussion was archived here [11]. As I understand it, you are currently able to add links to Baidu Baike archive pages, you just get a warning when doing so. Since that is (to me at least) a valid use of Baidu Baike links, you can just ignore the warning. Toadspike [Talk] 07:13, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Thanks man; currently having a slight dispute on the Wuzhishan City article regarding that exact topic. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 07:17, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
@Thehistorianisaac I am a little disappointed to see that neither of you has begun a discussion on the article talk page, which would be the next step here. Toadspike [Talk] 07:19, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

A Barnstar for You!

The Special Barnstar
Thank you for assisting me regarding my username. I value your feedback and appreciate that you took time our of your day to assist me. MWFwiki (talk) 02:56, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Toadspike/Archive_2&oldid=1297507729"