User talk:RandomCanadian/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Toto Wolff

His ethnicity should be explained since it's part of his formation, like many other articles do. Take a look at Footballers, Managers... Same thing, i think we should end this right here. Bubishist (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bubishist: Ethnicity is usually avoided if it has no bearing on a subject's notability. Wolff is best known for managing his F1 team, not for anything related to his or his parent's ethnicity. So I see no reason to include this information which, while true, is not really important. As I was saying in my incomplete edit summary, an encyclopedia is supposed to summarise the most important bits, not list everything that is known about a subject. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes indeed, summarize the most important aspects of a personality, Toto's parents are important and their ethnicity too like many other sportsmen, managers etc. The ethnicity of their parents(or of the subject) are ALWAYS shown. The article has been this for almost forever. Bubishist (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bubishist: Well then that's the typical WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments, there's surely a bazillion other sportsmen where the ethnicity of them or their parents (as opposed to nationality, which is relevant for international sports) has no bearing whatsoever on the subject's notability. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Kylian_Mbappe

Take a look at this, should also this be edited?

I really don't understand what are you trying to do. Bubishist (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'm saying that if ethnicity is just a trivial detail which doesn't change anything to the article, there's no real reason to include it. Anyway, you seem to not be hearing me, so there's no point wasting my time further. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bubishist: Based on your edits on the Wolff article and other articles (incl. Siege of Plevna), I have the strong feeling that his parent's ethnicity is only of particular interest to you as his father is of Romanian descent. Please note that neutrality is one of Wikipedia's key policies, and Wikipedia is not a place for pushing your own agenda.– NJD-DE (talk) 21:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

In Freundschaft

September songs

Thank you for your great additions to In Freundschaft, and now even sound! Too bad GA noms are possible only in one name, but when we go for FA you'll be included. - moar music, Beethoven today, and my brother was in the orchestra, 10 July. What do you think of sound for Immer leiser wird mein Schlummer, just the beginning, for similarity with the Andante from the Brahms Second Piano Concerto? (heard played by Barenboim on 6 August. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

next chapter about the day following Fidelio. - Thank you for the music of Christ lag in Todesbanden. DYK that I expanded that when my father died? We - family - visited the grave after the service pictured. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thanks. Sorry for forgetting about Brahms; I preferred to get some practice to refresh my memory with something I'm a bit more familiar with. I'll deal with it eventually: this thread should be helpful reminder. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:00, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

BWV 1 and its melody would be great to have by March 25! - For Brahms, I though only about the themes, in comparison, but understand that harmony would be great and more difficult. For BWV 4, I think the text of the first stanza would help, or is it just me? Happy Sunday - yesterday we enjoyed a hike with the Idstein choir, singing (just a bit to test acoustics) in Nothgottes, then hiking further to Eibingen Abbey, - first after June 2019! Today, I'll have a hymn on DYK later, but now there's a woman who also listened to Fidelio. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for expanding Abendmusiken but sorry that I have to tell you that it's too early for a December hook, - they hold them only 6 weeks in advance. If you are determined to have it then (and not want to ask for an exception, of hope that the nomination will be discussed for 7 weeks which happens often enough), you could do two things: you could bring it to GA in November, or you could revert the expansion - which has to be not older than a week when nominating) and bring it back beginning of November. You could also progress normally and not care about the date - which will probably garner more clicks, because who will read DYK those Advent Sundays? Third method: you write about some now red link in November with a hook mentioning the Abendmusiken, not bold then but still causing attraction. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Gerda Arendt: Interessierst du dich mit den Kantaten von Buxtehude? Draft:Wo ist doch mein Freund geblieben? - work in progres... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

  Danke, und ja. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

  Ich interessiere mich für die Kantaten, s.a. Dieterich Buxtehude – Opera Omnia. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Gerda Arendt: Gegenwärtig habe ich nicht genug Zeit für eine Gesamtausgabe (es gibt etwa 100 Kantaten, und ich muss auch meine IRL Arbeite schreiben), aber, denn du bist interessiert, kannst wahrscheinlich hilfen: diese Doktorarbeit hat eine sehr tiefgründige Analyse den folgenden Kantaten: 34, 41 und 78. Es gibt auch vielen Informationen da können für anderen Seiten benutzt sein, z.B. ein Teil über der Theologie in Bachs Musik, oder über der allgemeine Verbindung zwischen die Musik und die Theologie in 16. und 17. Jahrhunderte. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  Die folgenden auch: Die Authentizität des „Jüngsten Gerichts“ von Dietrich Buxtehude; Nochmals: Die Authentizität des Vokalwerks Dietrich Buxtehudes in quellenkritischer Sicht. // Probably warrants a mention somewhere in the list of works or even on Buxtehude's bio. If you're also interested in less well-known composers, there's this, which also just happens to cover BuxWV 61. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Reword request

Hi RandomCanadian, any chance you could rework the sentence from COVID-19 lab leak theory I mentioned on Shibbolethink's talk page a while back? Its illegibility to the lay person is still bugging me! Thanks, Jr8825 • Talk 18:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jr8825:  Done [1], as you appear to have already noticed. Is it any clearer? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I think it's better, but I still think it's a bit too convoluted! How about this (is the following accurate)? "In addition, the large advantage in transmissibility gained by the presence of the furin cleavage site would largely outweigh the evolutionary disadvantage of stronger immune responses from human B-cells." Your changes helped me hone in on the part of that sentence which I think is most confusing: "concerns" sounds like we're talking about researchers' concerns, whereas (I think) we're talking about whether it's advantageous/disadvantageous for the virus. Jr8825 • Talk 19:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again, I think it's now much clearer. Jr8825 • Talk 00:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

List of living former members of the United States House of Representatives (A)

Hello, RandomCanadian,

You left a very complicated speedy deletion tag for this page which I didn't really follow. Admins who patrol CSD categories like the taggings and violations to be clear and obvious as CSD is supposed to be "uncontroversial". My guess is that they will just pass on acting on your request which is what happens when admins are unsure about a situation. I recommend you bringing this page, and the subpages you allude to, to the attention of the admin who closed the original deletion discussion since they have already evaluated the situation and are familiar with the deletion discussion that concerns this page. I think this might speed up action on your request. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: See the above. I thought I had tagged the subpages with this, as I explain here and here; but apparently this was reverted by Finngall because the AfD template ended up in the wrong namespace so the template and the subpages weren't deleted. Mind fixing this? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Right, yeah, the template has to go to TfD, but I have now mass-deleted the subpages per the consensus at the AfD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:28, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I only reverted the tag on the template—I didn’t touch the subpages. I didn’t see what happened around the close, but I have noticed many other occasions where XFDcloser didn’t delete additional articles nominated alongside the “main” one. --Finngall ^talk 07:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@Finngall: I had put the tag on the template to avoid manually having to add it to each subpage. Anyway, nevermind, all fixed for now. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:32, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for withdrawing your MfD

I appreciate your withdrawal of your MfD at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:William B. Gunter. As you can see, getting full coverage of state supreme court justices is an enormous undertaking, and I have being working on it with only sporadic assistance for several years. It would be very good for you to pick up a few of these drafts and get them in shape to be moved to mainspace. Once you have done a few, it will become much easier to identify the appropriate sources. Cheers! BD2412 T 19:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

He was also a former state representative from Georgia. That made Gunter WP notable too....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:46, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: I would generally place a state supreme court justice above a state representative on the notability scale, though. BD2412 T 21:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Church cantata

Sigh on a Monday morning. I am not happy about the split of Church cantata and the derived list. How are you planning to resolve all these links to particular occasions. Example: BWV 1, link coded Church cantata#Annunciation (25 March), going nowhere, in estimated hundred cantatas (all FAs and GAs at least). Easiest solution: revert the split. Solution 2: go over all these and change the link. Solution 3: go over all occasions and make a redirect. I have no time for any of those today (have already a horrible load of things waiting for a reply, including In Freundschaft as you know), sorry, and would find 2 not elegant (a monster of an article name instead of plain Church cantata), and 3 even more of an Easter egg than we already have. Solution 4: leave Church cantata as it was and make a sortable list under the new name in addition. Help?? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I'm sorry Gerda; the existing article was well and truly a list under what really is an encyclopedic topic. The easiest solution is to make a WP:AWBREQ so that all links to a subsection now link to the subsection under the new title. I'll go ahead and do just that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you but not happy. The present Church cantata tells readers not much, and they have to click again to get to useful information? Really? - Please at least have the list linked in the lead, instead of a See also. (I don't know if any reader ever looks at See also. I don't.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

ps: The article Church cantata (Bach) began as List of Bach cantatas by liturgical function, and I prefer the concise name to the "correct" list description. Will that be the next one moved (which would be moved back)? At least then the links wouldn't be broken because of a redirect. Solution 5 to the first problem: move the former Church cantata to the list name, with Church cantata as a redirect? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Church cantata (Bach) could likely get rid of the parenthetical and become Bach cantata; and cover everything (adding a small section about secular cantatas wouldn't be too hard) ; and yeah; the list would likely also need to be split out to the former title. The problem as I see it is that all of these are notable topics covered to a lot of depth in academic literature (i.e. more specifically, in exactly the topic I'm currently reading for university courses), but currently the coverage we have of them is mostly limited to these two (now two and half, since the new church cantata is obviously a work in progress) lists. The ultimate idea of what the finished product would look like is something like Fugue (with the caveat that cantatas are a less rigid form and that they evolved through their history) - so analysis of musical structures common to the works; a bit of history (what we now term "cantata" is really a whole lot of oversimplification, since in effect, church music consisting of voices accompanied by instruments [essentially what we call a cantata, and what was known to contemporaries as "figured music" or even simply "sacred music"] was present in 17th-century Germany [look at Buxtehude], in many different shapes and forms, although not yet with the Italianate air-recitative structure that would come to dominate the landscape, notably in the work of Bach - a good example of the "old style" in Bach is something like BWV 106, with the combination of ideas and continuous composition style [all of this is taken from the cited work by Cantagrel - I assume that's not too much help to you]); ... : that would obviously include place for naming composers (ideally as running text and not as a plain list) as well as for listing the more prominent examples and linking to the whole list. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Go ahead, good ideas. (I still think the split could have been done after expanding. Hundreds of links at present going to a stub leaves me uneasy. I'm almost ready - now that at least the two last-day-DYK noms are done - to fix at least the FAs. Here we claim highest quality, and then link readers to an unrelated stub ...) We already have detailed articles about Bach's church cantata cycles and his secular cantatas. And we have Bach cantata. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

"Bach-centrism"; as I was saying, then. I'll give you a notice when the AWB task is done; there's about 550-odd links, it's probable some will need manual adjustment. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2021 Canadian federal election

On 25 September 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2021 Canadian federal election, 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. 331dot (talk) 23:28, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

331dot (talk) 23:28, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Reform Party of Canada ‎

If you got time and are interested ... Talk:Reform Party of Canada#‎political position.--Moxy- 21:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@Moxy: I haven't got time (there's an actual course work IRL I ought to be doing about this); but I've provided you with a few citations. Some of them contain interesting sources in their respective bibliographies (the book chapter by Malloy cites: Trevor Harrison, Of Passionate Intensity: Right-Wing Populism and the Reform Party of Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995)). If you don't have access you can leave me an email and I can send you the relevant bits (this will avoid you having to go to WP:RX for the same). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Will review .....have access... thank you so much for your work.--Moxy- 22:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

JOBTITLES discussion close

Hi RandomCanadian! You recently closed this infobox style discussion. Are you aware that there are ongoing efforts to write a panel close? You can see coordination at WP:CR and on at least one user talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind. Just saw your post there. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: Yeah, sorry about that; I actually wasted far too much time myself figuring whether what the "result" of that was, before ending up with the only thing that it could most certainly not be. Reminding everybody of the Law of triviality and that, ultimately, it's not the end of the world, seemed a far better option. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I have a different view than you on this, but I can certainly empathize with feeling like way too much time has been spent on this issue. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Editors are each free to work on whatever interests them. If you feel it is trivial, don't work on it. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 05:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Tartan357: What I find trivial is people getting all excited to argue about literally a punctuation preference. The only thing that discussion shows is evidence that JOBTITLE is a disputed guideline (hence why merely citing the guideline is not a magic keyword); hence the step I proposed: resolve the core dispute about the guideline instead of wasting time arguing about whether the guideline needs to be applied in a specific context. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

If you had read my close challenge, you'd know that I did not dispute Chetsford's no consensus close, but rather the status quo that such a close should refer back to. The panel closers are working to determine what the status quo was. Please let them do their work. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 05:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Tartan357: As I said, I did not read those discussions until after the fact, and then I only briefly looked at Chet's close and scrolled very rapidly through the AN. If it's even unsure what the status quo was, then I don't think it's worth the time and effort (especially if it is across "thousands of articles") to determine what this is (especially not when the RfC question already implies there is a status quo). At least, the last time something like that happened to me, the solution was simple: remove the disputed element altogether (here). If the issue is whether it should be "Xth president" or "Xth President"; then just remove "Xth" and now you have something that causes no dispute. i.e. example:

Extended content
Joe Biden President of the United States Incumbent Assumed office January 20, 2021 Vice President Kamala Harris Preceded by Donald Trump Vice President of the United States In office January 20, 2009 – January 20, 2017 President Barack Obama

At least, seems like the most efficient way to not have endless RfCs on the matter RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Removing ordinals from such infoboxes, may be heavily challenged by many. Particularly concerning the US political articles. The ordinal option, would likely be best worked out, on a country-by-country basis. GoodDay (talk) 09:28, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, which option was decided. GoodDay (talk) 09:23, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: (replying to both comments): In that case, if it's too much trouble, and people get ired about the number, it's probably best to just leave it as is, in the spirit of not wasting editor time and ressources on minor details. "Which option" - there was a change proposed; this change did not achieve consensus and should naturally not be enacted; so go back to the previous sentence and replace "number" with "punctuation". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Best to leave office titles capitalised in the infoboxes, as that's how they currently are. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Coming attraction

There's a strong chance you're likely going to get challenged (from Lecen) on your RFC closure at Pedro I of Brazil. Ya may want to keep that article on your watch-list. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, that didn't take long. See below. GoodDay (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Unsurprising. What I was more and unpleasantly surprised with was the behavioural issue I note in my post scriptum, which could warrant a visit to the dramaboard if it persists. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Myself & Lecen have bumped heads a few times over the years, at Pedro I of Brazil and certainly at Pedro II of Brazil. PS - I've grown familiar with his approach to content disputes, at those two bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

RfC on Pedro I of Brazil

Could you clarify your stance on the RfC on the article about Pedro I of Brazil? There was clearly no majority nor even a consensus concerning any changes to an article that has been stable for ten years. In fact, almost none of the people involved were past contributors of that article nor have any knowledge of Brazilian history or historiography. The articles uses the Portuguese names for Portuguese people because that is what the sources do. Past contributors, such as myself, Astynax and DrKay have opposed the changes, explaining the reasons. One editor called GoodDay (see above) who has no knowledge of the topic but has been trying to force the change for over ten years now, created a RFC with two confusing options without any proper discussion on the matter, including on the sources. I’m trying to understand what you did there and if you actually told us to make the changes the GoodDay wants, despite going against sources and the experience of past contributors, as well as lacking any kind of consensus. --Lecen (talk) 21:36, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The first part of your objection, regarding past contributors and the previous status of the article, holds no weight, insofar it is contrary to established Wikipedia practice. Nobody owns an article, and nobody has a final say: articles are understood to be continuous works in progress, and even featured articles can be improved. In addition, Wikipedia is a collaborative project, so editors are expected to collaborate with others, which includes accepting criticism of and improving existing articles. Accusing another editor of bad faith and of having "no knowledge of the topic" is an obvious ad hominem, which is also rather nearer the bottom of this handy little pyramid.

The second part of your argument claims that the RfC is malformed (because it has "two confusing options"). A simple binary choice between using one language or the other (for consistency within the same article) does not seem confusing or inappropriate to me.

Now, as to the final part, you are arguing that my close is incorrect because it goes against sources, and because it apparently lacks consensus, in your opinion. To explain my reasoning on this, requires a familiarity with Wikipedia's policies regarding the use of foreign languages and regarding article titles. The appropriate section of the manual of style, MOS:FOREIGN, mentioned by a few contributors to the discussion, states that "In deciding whether and how to translate a foreign name into English, follow English-language usage. If there is no established English-language treatment for a name, translate it if this can be done without loss of accuracy and with greater understanding for the English-speaking reader." To demonstrate this, those arguing in favour overwhelmingly pointed to WP:COMMONNAME, which suggests that articles (including about figures from non-English countries) should prefer "the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) ." Many editors in the discussion point out that the indicated articles are indeed at their English titles (which is also consistent with other parts of the title policy, such a "The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English."); and that using the same name as the most common name of the subject (as attested by existing usage on Wikipedia) is coherent with other style guide suggestions, such as not surprising the reader and favouring English terms or names if those are preferred by English-language sources. Between that and unsupported assertions that most modern sources use Portuguese (no source, citation or quotation is provided, and the argument that sources in the article use it is not helpful since most of them are in Portuguese, so not much use - if we go back to the little pyramid I linked earlier, that's "Contradiction - states the opposing case with little or no supporting evidence"); I must obviously give precedence to arguments which are more logically convincing and which are more in line with Wikipedia policy, as any closer is expected to do; and since discussions are not votes.

Obviously, this is probably not the answer you wanted to hear. Hopefully, you at least understand the issues and principles which guided my decision. In addition, as the tone of your comment here seems to indicate you are not satisfied with my close, I would suggest you heed the advice of WP:CLOSECHALLENGE: "Simply believing a closure is wrong, even if reasonable people would have closed it differently, is not usually sufficient for overturning the result." RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

p.s. I notice that the issue about other editors is not new or unique to this talk page. I endeavour to remind that civility is a requirement on Wikipedia, and your comments are also more likely to get a positive reception if you focus on the issue at hand and do not attempt to cast unfounded accusations as to the motives of others (something which is also true in the real world). Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I merely asked for clarification concerning your decision. I thought that the opinion of contributors who actually did research on the topic mattered as well what sources in English said about it. I see now, according to you, that none of that is important. But your tone is so hostile to me that I see that is pointless to continue arguing. --Lecen (talk) 03:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Lecen: Sorry you feel that way about it; in my mind your comment was a clear challenge of the close so I considered most appropriate to provide a detailed explanation and refutation. You might want to see Help:Wikipedia editing for researchers, scholars, and academics if you're in that situation. Also WP:EQUALITY. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll implement the RFC decision (Saturday, Oct 2), with hopes that Lecen will not revert my changes. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: You're free to take any action you feel is consistent with the outcome of the RfC. If Lecen reverts, I'll note that my talk page is not ANI 2.0 (and not only because I don't have the A bit) - try Drmies' instead. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

RfC Closure atop

Hi. Thanks for the closure at Talk:P. V. Sindhu. It seems you used the normal closure instead of RfC closure in the DiscussionCloser. It has put {{atop}} and {{abot}} instead of {{closed rfc top}} and {{closed rfc bottom}}. Could you correct them? Thanks! — DaxServer (talk to me) 07:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@DaxServer: Both templates work, and I tend to use them indifferently. If you don't link {{atop}}, you're free to replace it with the corresponding closed rfc ones. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Apologies

I wanted to apologize to you for going too far in my comment at AN/I regarding your use of the word "petty". In my frustrations with the incivility that takes place on those threads with reckless abandon I made a comment about a minor thing that could have been hurtful or maybe even puzzling as to my intent. I haven't returned to the thread so I don't know if anything further has been said but my intentions were sincere even if my approach was incorrect. It was unnecessary to comment the way I did or even to comment specifically on that at all. I wanted to apologize to you personally here. I respect you and your contributions to the encyclopedia and our collaborative effort. I am going there to strike the comment from my edit. I remain committed to bringing attention to the vital and important subject of civility in every aspect of this project and I admit I have a lot I can learn still about its application and how best to approach situations. Again, I sincerely apologize to you for my comment. --ARoseWolf 12:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf: No offence given, none taken. I tend to be a bit blunt when there's something important which is inexplicably missing (which suggests that people are failing to see the forest for the trees; hence the need to point it out). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the response and explanation. It was and is such a minor technicality and you were right for bringing that out. That was the main intent of what I was trying to say. Both you and Cullen were correct and this whole situation could be cleared up on the talk page and without all the uncivil remarks both editors made there. But that's neither here nor there. I appreciate your response and your acceptance of my apology. I struck the comment as inappropriate. --ARoseWolf 13:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

RfC closure 2021 Canadian federal election

There isn't one. A non-admin closed the existing one while the numbers weren't even close to all in and a lot of the support was provisional on the PPC holding its vote count above 5%. Far too early a closure and one partly to blame for the current mess. A new RfC can wait until all numbers are in. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 23:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@G. Timothy Walton: There is still an ongoing RfC (marked with the RfC template) about this exact issue. And, as you should be obviously aware, WP:5P5 is a fundamental principle and how close to an arbitrary number a party is to an informally agreed cut-off does not seem to be a convincing argument to most participants of said RfC who cite other more widely accepted principles: looks like you're in the minority on this one. I never said the RfC was closed; I said the discussion was duplicative of the existing RfC, which is correct. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

We're not referring to the same discussion. The one that actually had RfC in the title was closed early by a non-admin. The other flew under my radar as an RfC.

I have learnt what the Wikipedia definition of COI differs from my own. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 01:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Cwm Rhondda

You were too quick off the draw with this revert, which you made within a second of my edit. My edit summary indicated that I was about to modify the text, you should have given me the courtesy of waiting a minute or two to review my next edit. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:44, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Verbcatcher: Your source is still inadequate; it has no mention of rugby. Please see WP:SYNTH; and do read WP:BURDEN since if you were going to add it within a minute or two; then you should have taken the time to do it properly and done it all at once. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Osibisa

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wondering why RandomCanadian removed both Osibisa band member information (large section) and singles and EP information (complete section) when it all appeared previously correct?

Would suggest these are all added back in as not having it in place clearly detracts from the general information. McMalcolm (talk) 00:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• @McMalcolm: I don't know which article you're talking about. If I removed the information, it is probably because it failed to cite a reliable source. See WP:V. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

It was removing the EP’s and singles information wholesale when much of this has been there for a long time (and was highly accurate) and other parts where I added information that are shown as actual releases on iTunes and many other platforms.

Likewise with band member information which was previously there and accurate if sometimes incomplete.

Just seemed bizarre frankly and I believe it should all be reinstated

Regards

Rob McMalcolm (talk) 00:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@McMalcolm: Found the article (that was a fair bit ago). I can now confirm that my initial answer (that the information was removed because no source was cited) was indeed the reason I removed this. See WP:Verifiability, not truth, and consider that Wikipedia is not a database and that information which does not have a reliable source to support it cannot be included, as I pointed out already, per WP:V. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Truly bizarre. RandomCanadian removed highly valid information sections. Clearly no real knowledge of this band and it’s music.

McMalcolm (talk) 01:25, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AfD close

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neek the Exotic - this seems like a WP:BADNAC#2 The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Such closes are better left to an administrator. It is what the AN was about. I was on the Keep side, but this was an overwhelming draftify or delete based on AfD participation. Lightburst (talk) 03:21, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Lightburst You just come off an AN thread which found I did nothing wrong, and you're back right here arguing that I'm wrong, again? I'm not going to do a comment-by-comment analysis of that discussion; but there was no clear consensus either that the subject failed GNG or that he met the relevant SNG and that the presence of at least some acceptable sources was enough (as also evidenced by previous relists, both by admins, 78.26 and filelakeshoe, who must have found as I have that there was no clear policy-based consensus at the time - by the way, if either of you feels I've overstepped here and wants to overrule my no consensus close; you're free to do so).

There was not enough convincing new participation since the previous relist (out of the three new comments, one is an unsupported assertion that "notability is borderline"; the last one ("weak keep") is pointing to the already discussed fact the subject's songs charted, without providing new reasoning; and the middle one isn't much more convincing, ending with a classic example of WP:NOEFFORT). None of these are enough to establish that there is now a consensus if there wasn't one a week ago, and a look at the previous arguments does not establish that either of the previous two made an error in judgement, it's unlikely there's one now. There's no credible way that this could have been closed with a positive result at this time, and relisting a third time did not appear warranted, so this was, in my honest opinion (reasonable people could potentially disagree) neither a close-call, nor controversial (closing as "no consensus" after prolonged but unclear discussion is not controversial). Now if your only objection to all of this is that I don't have the mop, that's not convincing, and more of an argument for me considering whether I should actually run for the darn thing - not that I'm particularly interested, but if it saves the trouble...

Of course, you're free to follow the standard process as suggested in the relevant sub-section of WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, although I'll point out that "Deletion review should not be used [...] to argue technicalities". The last time something like this happened, the nomination was speedily re-closed by an admin as, indeed, no consensus, so I wouldn't suggest repeating the exercise. Note that there is no prejudice against future re-nomination (as usual for no consensus closes), so if you come back to the article in a few weeks or months and notice that issues with it still have not been resolved, you're free to re-nominate it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think this was a close call. A vast majority of participants !voted either "delete" or "draftify". There was one "keep" !vote and one "weak keep" (I'm ignoring the ridiculous "speedy close" !vote by Hullaballoo). As the creator was still working on this, I think the correct close should have been "draftify". I urge you to reconsider your close. --Randykitty (talk) 09:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think a "no consensus" close was completely off. Two participants offered sources late on in the discussion (after all the "draftify" votes) and evaluation of these by other participants was minimal. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Randykitty: As you're also well aware, discussions are not votes, and a raw count is often unhelpful. I don't disagree that "draftify" is a valid outcome, but it certainly didn't achieve a consensus (being only mentioned by two early commentators), nor were the arguments in it's favour so overwhelmingly strong that they could override the more recent keep !votes (which do seem at least to contain one valid source towards GNG), and filelakeshoe's concise summary of the rest pretty much aligns with mine. It's a case where, clearly, reasonable editors could have come to different conclusions, but I don't think there was a clear consensus; and I don't think my close is unreasonable: the AfD was open for nearly a month and it certainly needed a close, one way or the other, and a "no consensus" now is not inconsistent with a "draftify" or "delete/redirect" in a few months if the underlying issues can't be fixed. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and back out the close and draftify the article. There is a clear consensus that this should not presently exist as a mainspace article. BD2412 T 18:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: your work at AfD is very much appreciated, and I would do nothing to discourage your efforts there, but bear in mind that in discussions with close outcomes, the closer's view of the outcome might be expected to be shaded by the tools available to them to carry out the close. BD2412 T 18:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• @BD2412: I strongly disagree with your close and with your out of process behaviour (this should at least have gone to DRV - as evidenced by the contradictory reaction I'm getting, there are plenty who say the close was perfectly OK), and I feel there's sufficient justification here against your unilateral action or Lightburst's otherwise unfounded stalking of my AfD closes/relists, but sure, go ahead. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I am trying to mentor you here, not to sabotage you. I avoided explicitly invoking WP:BADNAC in the edit summary reverting your close. BD2412 T 19:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@BD2412: (you just rollbacked, which is not much better) I'm not accusing you of anything untoward, and of course I know that I can occasionally be wrong, I'm just annoyed that this was done out of process and, more importantly, unilaterally - among others, HighInBC was of the opinion that this was textbook no consensus. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I am here because I was pinged. I don't see this as out of process. WP:NAC warns about the chance that an admin may revert your close, and gives advice for if this happens. I did say that I did not see fault with the close but I also said another admin may feel differently. As for DRV, it is still available. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

October 2021

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The thread is named 2600:8804:6600:C4:9DD6:8ED8:6B65:A506's talk page. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)