User talk:FOARP/Archives/2022/September

Another bundled nomination problem

Hello, FOARP,

Well, I ended up with a colossal mess last night closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mazraeh-ye Tahqiqati Tutun, this time with 130 nominated pages (plus their talk pages and plus their redirects). XFDCloser only deleted the first article and since there were so many other articles proposed for deletion, I used a batch deletion tool admins have to use and ended up deleting a lot of other pages that were linked to the AFD that were definitely not targeted for deletion! I had some help but it took a long time to restore all of those mistakenly deleted pages. I think I need to post a note at the XFDCloser talk page to see what the problem is. Hope you are having a pleasant weekend. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Hey, at least you got the honour of having your user talk page deleted for just under half an hour! An exceptionally rare occurrence, if I may say... —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

LOL! Definitely a distinction! Thanks for getting it done in the end Liz and k6ka - I think the idea of having a clean page with no other links in it is probably the best way to go. FOARP (talk) 10:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, FOARP,

I just took care of a bundled nomination that XFDCloser handled flawlessly! I wanted to let you know about it so you might consider modeling any future bundled nominations on its format. It was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swimming at the 2005 Maccabiah Games – Men's 100 metre backstroke and while XFDCloser had a pop-up saying "Are you SURE you want to delete X number of pages?", once I said "Yes", it took care of all of the article pages, the article talk pages, the redirects and the redirect talk pages in seconds. Worked like magic!

I think you have some other bundled nominations on your future schedule as you try to clean up all of these village articles so it would be great if they were in a format that XFDCloser could handle. Thanks and I hope you are having a great week. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Ilinden Uprising

Thanks for reading through the move discussion. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your assessment of no consensus, however the closure means the discussion ended with no input from non-Bulgarian/Macedonian editors. Certainly, the discussion had been open for a long time and there's no reason to believe any uninvolved editors were going to participate. So, I'm wondering your thoughts on how we can make progress on such topics where there's a "Bulgarian side" and a "Macedonian side", and no one else gets involved to help find the right solution - even in formal discussions like RMs. I suppose you would have left an opinion on the move if you had one, but did you find one side's arguments more compelling? If outside editors think the current title really is best, then it's acceptable to me. However, the outcome of this discussion just feels like it's remaining as-is because the usual suspects turned up and participated as expected, with no neutral perspective given to assess the arguments. Thanks. --Local hero ^talk 22:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Local hero. The Not Moved close was an outcome of really no-one picking up on or expanding on either your or the nominator's move rationales. The vote stacking issue meant I had to give the one other move !vote a low weighting, making it effectively five !votes to two. Of course this is not a pure count of votes, but given that the arguments seemed relatively balanced it pointed to a clear Not Moved result.

What I would really have liked to have seen is a really good search engine test of which term is more commonly used - GBooks is flawed because nowadays it gives hits that do not actually contain the keywords (see e.g., this book which was one of the hits in your search for "Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising" but does not contain that phrase). GScholar at least does not do that and would be a better basis. Also any move rationale should deal with the accuracy concerns and preferably be couched in terms of WP:CRITERIA (e.g., one title is preferable over the other because it is e.g., more concise). Particularly, you need to explain why the uprisings in general at that time are known as the "Ilinden uprising" even when referring to the uprisings as a whole including those outside Ilinden - specifically you needed to show that even the uprising in Preobrazhenie is known as part of the "Ilinden uprising" so the accuracy/article scope point is wrong. Alternatively a consensus could be built up based on reliable sources that the Preobrazhenie uprising should be addressed in a separate article and not be part of this article.

The argument that "Bulgarians/Macedonians say X" is not, by itself, a strong one and frankly I wouldn't bother with it unless you can clearly point to a rationale that the current name is a WP:POVNAME beyond simply "Bulgarians/Macedonians like/don't like that name", preferably one based on a statement by a historian saying that this name is a WP:POVNAME. Bulgarians/Macedonians writing in English are also English-language sources. It is nice when we can get previously uninvolved editors into an old argument, and I recommend advertising any future discussion widely on relevant wikiprojects (e.g., WP:HISTORY) so that more people see it.

Finally, I think you need to wait a decent period of time before raising this issue again given that this is at least the second discussion on this issue to end as Not Moved. FOARP (talk) 07:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Good tips, thanks a lot. --Local hero ^talk 16:04, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Update: Phase II of DS reform now open for comment

You were either a participant in WP:DS2021 (the Arbitration Committee's Discretionary Sanctions reform process) or requested to be notified about future developments regarding DS reform. The Committee now presents Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/2021-22_review/Phase_II_consultation, and invites your feedback. Your patience has been appreciated. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Side point

You: I think the crux of what we're saying here is that where there is at least one SIGCOV source, there is not likely to be problem as far as this [mass creation] RFC is concerned.

Editors at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Mass creation of pages on fish species: the notability guideline requires 'significant coverage," and databases do not provide this; database entries alone are insufficient.

There already is a problem with people having different ideas about what constitutes SIGCOV and how that affects "mass creation" of articles (at a rate of one or two per day in this instance). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing with a standard like SIGCOV there will always be a grey area as to what is/isn't SIGCOV. That just needs to be beaten out on a case-by-case basis for anything that falls into that grey area in a forum like WP:RSN. That GNIS, the Iranian census, Sport-reference.com, Olympedia etc. are not SIGCOV is indisputable and these are the databases that are the worst offenders, and requiring at least one SIGCOV reference would solve the problem of them being essentially imported into Wikipedia in an automated fashion with no chance that the resulting article will ever reach community standards. FOARP (talk) 09:04, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

The problem I'm seeing is that editors are saying that certain ways to present information never provide SIGCOV. Imagine someone saying "Videos never provide SIGCOV": it might sound appealing if you have a particularly uninformative video anchoring your thinking, but once you thought about it, you'd decide that was wrong. Some videos provide SIGCOV; others don't. The same is true for databases. Certain databases don't provide SIGCOV for anything. Other databases might have SIGCOV for some entries but not for others. Still others might have SIGCOV for everything.

To give an example, imagine a source that provides for an organization its name, location, year of founding (and closing, if relevant), the industry/field it's in, a complete list of all the CEOs/presidents/whatever the right term is and their years in office, a list of notable awards it won (if any), and the names of any employees who won notable awards (if any).

This is enough information to write a page like the List of National League presidents, List of IBM CEOs, or List of presidents of the Canadian National Railway Company. It's enough information to let you make a good start on Featured Lists such as List of presidents of the National Rifle Association or List of presidents of Georgetown University.

Is that amount of information SIGCOV if it's written up as a magazine article?

Does that same information stop being SIGCOV if it's presented as a database entry?

NB that even if it provides SIGCOV, it still might not indicate notability, since a source could provide SIGCOV without being a secondary source, and it's very common for sources to provide SIGCOV without being independent (see, e.g., every autobiographical book ever written). But I'm asking: Would such a source provide SIGCOV, and does the answer to that question depend on how the source is formatted? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)