User talk: Red Slash

Do you have problems with my editing, me personally, etc.? Well, come on, leave a note, any note. Silence is not the way... we need to talk about it. (See also User talk:Red Slash/Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.)

[1]

That river with its mouth in South Asia

I was not able to close the RM (due, in no small part, to some game about a magical deer) myself, but I wanted to drop a message about your requested move anyway. While I would've closed the RM in pretty much the same way – I agree with the argument that the river delta is has a large degree of cotermininity with the state of Bangladesh is enough to argue against the "strong national ties" argument – your argument in general that WP:TITLEVAR applies in the case of Indian English is, of course, completely correct, as evidenced by the use of the crore numbering system where necessary. Sceptre (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you. Honestly, I'm ticked enough at the injustice that I intentionally haven't looked at the page since I launched the move request, since I figured I might be uncivil... so thanks for letting me know it closed. Wikipedia has a strong history of discounting the English of nonwhite people. Red Slash 06:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Sunflower move closure question

I'm curious if you have another rationale for this RM closure other than WP:VOTE ("this is what people want"). I appreciate your work on RM. Thanks. —  AjaxSmack  16:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@AjaxSmack: it wasn't my best work. The common-name argument was made, fairly convincingly, at the previous/other move request and it was referred to several times during the discussion. I had to discount the arguments about "Sunflower should be about annuus instead" because there was just a move request that decided that annuus needed to be at "Common sunflower". When you deal with these weird overlapping topics, it's really hard to disentangle the one from the other.

Once you discount the ones who thought that annuus should be at sunflower, arguments like "the group as a whole does not seem to be called sunflowers" didn't do much for me. But like... yeah, it wasn't my best close. That is why I closed it the way I did. I don't think that if this were taken to Move Review, I could convincingly defend it. I have enough respect for you that if you want me to revert it, I can. Red Slash 05:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate your time. —  AjaxSmack  12:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I just posted a move review request here. —  AjaxSmack  03:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Re your comment there: I would have asked here, but didn't know that was an option. —  AjaxSmack  02:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I never responded to this! My bad. No worries either way. Red Slash 16:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Shaker(s)

I'm glad you supported the 2nd move request even though you said you'd probably oppose such a request last time. Per the views etc it does seem like the religious group has a stronger claim for being primary for the plural than the singular though looking at source etc it does look like the Shakers do indeed still have a strong claim for the singular as a member is a "Shaker" and when its used as a modifier such as a "Shaker chair" (as noted by Walrasiad) though. In terms of the ASTONSISH argument I made previously that is in respect to the likes of Salt and pepper shakers as well as protein shakers (though as noted we don't have an article but we do have mention with the Protein shake redirect). While the previous move request was "not moved" in general and the closer acknowledged B wasn't opposed as much but consensus was against it it actually looks more like a "no consensus" for that though the plural was clearly "not moved" as unanimously opposed. Many readers are going to be far more familiar with these than a religious group with a population of 2. Compare that to Quaker/Quakers which is not a common noun and has 377,557 members and which I'd heard of and has 69 WP articles worldwide as opposed to 18 for Shakers. In terms of the mistargeted links mentioned by User:Colin M when I fixed the links to "Shaker" (singular) there are 109 mainspace links for the religious group (5 additionally for the subtopic Shaker furniture), 69 for Shaker (musical instrument) (as Colin noted appeared high), 4 for Shaker (gene), 1 for Cocktail shaker and 1 for Shaker (Lil Shaker). There are 2 links left, at CBS and Brian Wilson Presents Smile that I can't work out. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Fascinating! I figured that there would be some erroneous links; that's yet another good argument in favor of your move. I think that an overall aversion to the Shakers move poisoned my outlook on the shaker move a couple years ago. I think raising it again, separately, was a good call. Red Slash 21:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

As noted at User talk:Buidhe/Archive 16#Bugles RMs involving multiple pages tend to yield inconclusive results, whereas those for just one page are more likely to have a clear outcome since Talk:Bugle (disambiguation)#Requested move 22 March 2021 that you closed had more support for the 3rd move than the 1st 2 and Talk:Bugles (snack)#Requested move 30 March 2021 resulted in consensus to move. Similarly Talk:Just Friends#Requested move 10 September 2018 ignored the request made later at Talk:Just Friends (Joe Temperley and Jimmy Knepper album)#Requested move 8 January 2019 that did have consensus at the 1st request. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Jay

When you exclude PTMs as noted the bird only gets around 52% of views of topics only called "Jay" and the name also probably has long-term significance but do you not think that the letter name of J also has enough usage and long-term significance to suggest no PT by either criteria? The main argument against the move appears to be that of only things called just "Jay" the bird is marginally primary by either criteria but even that seems dubious. In any case the close was good and correct (unless we went with the rule of having no PT in "no consensus" PT discussions). Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey @Crouch, Swale:! So that's an interesting point. In the UK, y'all tend to believe that the letters of the alphabet each have a name that is written out; that is a very UK belief that is not at all shared in the United States. I daresay that if you asked an educated American how to spell "x", they'd look at you askance, as if you'd asked them how to cook water. To me, "J" is spelled "J", period. (Or should I say, "full stop"! ) Red Slash 20:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we usually have different way of writing things out in the UK, I think I've only seen the letter names written out once in my whole life! (other than the WP article) However at the very least because the letter is both pronounced that way and its its name to me it tips the scales in favor of moving. Indeed if you asked someone here how to spell "J" (when pronouncing it with the letter name as opposed to letter sound) they would probably think you were asking them to spell the given name or bird not the letter (which again points to the given name also being common). The discussion at Talk:Double U (DJ)#Requested move 24 February 2020 did get opposition for moving the DJ to the letter name. And yes in the UK "full stop" is more common than "period" but "period" is used. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Precious

One year!

Move review for Berbers

An editor has asked for a Move review of Berbers. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. إيان (talk) 19:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Just fyi, the MRV has been reopened. See its talk page. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 16:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Fake dubious

Template:Fake dubious has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOGOODOPTIONS question

I had removed a question I asked on the Farux move review because it didn't pertain to whether Paine's actions were to be overturned, so I'll ask over here. If the review moves the article back to Farux, but I open a new RM to directly discuss the X vs. kh issue (one of Paine's counterarguments being that it wasn't directly demonstrated that the RM participants disliked the X spelling) and it becomes clear that the new RM's participants didn't like the X spelling but still cannot agree on "Parukh" or "Farukh" (or "Farrukh"; that also appeared in the original RM), would the WP:NOGOODOPTIONS "no good reasons to keep X" clause apply and the title should stop using the X? On another note, it took me a while to understand that your use of "slapping with WP:TROUT" was in legitimate jest. Namely because I didn't actually click on the WP:TROUT link, oh well. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Mellohi!: Sorry for the delayed response! My interpretation of WP:NOGOODOPTIONS would be that yes, if everyone hates a certain title, then the move request should end up moving it somewhere and that then we should be sure that the next RM reaches a consensus.

Also, out of curiosity, how long have you been at Wikipedia? WP:TROUT is one of the oldest memes we've got; it may not be commonly understood in 2022! Whoops! Red Slash 21:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Chris Noble for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chris Noble is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Noble until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Bgsu98 (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to ask you to reconsider your close at Talk:Great_Replacement#Requested_move_16_May_2022

I appreciate the care that you have evidently put into your closing statement at Talk:Great_Replacement#Requested_move_16_May_2022. However I do not believe that you've provided sufficient rationale to go against a clear majority of 25–16 !voters. Yes, you've argued that there is no consensus on three out of the four points you've highlighted, but I would argue that this is a rather arbitrary way to decide. You do concede that WP:COMMONNAME is well satisfied (the first point you highlight), and if a clear majority of editors favor the move, that should be sufficient –– especially when no contravening consensus on any of the other points was evident. At the very least, I would like to see an admin make a call as controversial as this one, which goes against the clear majority of !voters (yes, WP:NOTAVOTE notwithstanding). All that said, I very much hope that you will not take this request as in any way calling into question your good faith and your effort. Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much, @Generalrelative:, for your polite response. Common name alone is, of course, not sufficient to move an article title; otherwise, you'd see titles like poop, boogers, pee, fart, etc. And it's not even clear from the discussion whether or not the GRCT title is more common; it's just clear that it's common enough. But that's not the only thing that was argued, and many people argued persuasively in favor of and against the proposed title. I'll be completely honest; I didn't even count the votes. I often don't do that when I close move requests, and I close a fair few of them. (Honestly, you could've told me the spread was 30-16, or 19-16, or even 15-16, and I would've believed you!)

I looked at every serious, policy-backed argument before or against, and tried to see if anyone answered it satisfactorily. I saw zero consensus on "do we generally include 'conspiracy theory' in articles on conspiracy theories" (it sure seems like there is no compelling rule; one opposer suggested that there is a rule, and he was completely shot down by examples countervailing his theory). I saw no response to "we don't need to make the title more precise because it's already precise enough to unambiguously identify the title", which is what WP:PRECISE means. Charitably, I assigned the arguments that said "precise" in favor of the move as really meaning "accurate" or "providing important information", which is... just not something that we consistently do (or consistently do not do!) on Wikipedia, according to the arguments that went back and forth and back and forth. We sure do do it sometimes, and we sure don't do it other times.

The common name point was essentially just saying "COMMON is not a reason NOT to move this page". There's no consensus behind any compelling reason TO move the page, however. That is why I closed it with no consensus.

I take no offense whatsoever at your comment. I hope the same is true for you with mine. I hope you have a spectacular day. Red Slash 21:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I found your closure summary to be a very entertaining read. Great job! 😁👍  Tewdar  21:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Greg Hsu

Why did you move this page? There was one support and two people who expressed doubts, and zero reliable sources using the new name. No consensus does not mean "move the page". —Kusma (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

There is no minimum requirement for participation. Two people "expressing doubts" doesn't mean they've opposed it, and an unopposed move request will almost always be carried out. Red Slash 17:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, I opposed. —Kusma (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Move review for Greg Han

An editor has asked for a Move review of Greg Han. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. —Kusma (talk) 12:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Than you for renaming Odessa -> Odesa! A1 (talk) 12:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much! This is probably my all-time best moment as a Wikipedian. But I did just what everyone does every day--do the best we can to impartially express the verifiable data we've got. Thank you!! Red Slash 22:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Strathmore

The discussion at Talk:Valley of Strathmore#Requested move 14 September 2022 is an interesting case where like with Sarah Jane Brown it was difficult to qualify it so using a natural disambiguation was chosen. I don't think though it was problematic even choosing natural disambiguation anyway since the Gazetteer for Scotland prefers the longer name. There was also a similar discussion at Talk:Handa Island. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Yep, it's a pretty elegant solution to a very difficult problem. Nicely done, sir! Red Slash 21:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

October 2022

They say not to template regulars, so consider this a level-1 warning. I'd consider this vandalism coming from a new user, and with the most AGF I can muster it's still deliberate introduction of a factual error. You introduced material you knew you couldn't substantiate, and it's clear you didn't do the most rudimentary research like, you know, googling the word. If it was just the comment on the talk I'd get that you were trying to be funny, but actually adding it in the main namespace defies explanation. I hope it won't happen again. Nardog (talk) 07:32, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

comment on AOC closure

You wrote at Talk:AOC (disambiguation) that "no compelling argument was made whatsoever about long-term significance". Maybe you missed my comment that said:

"a huge amount of people are aware of AOC monitors, as they're mass-produced and sold worldwide. If there was a brand of consumer products like 'JFK' that was already common in the 1940s, that would be an issue there, too."

Nobody responded to that actually. (I guess it got lost in the weirdness of the rest of that thread.) Certainly I can understand if you didn't find this argument compelling, but I'd appreciate it if you could phrase it in a way other than one that implies that there was no argument made whatsoever. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

• That's fair. People being aware of the existence of something else that is abbreviated to AOC, I didn't consider that compelling, but I can edit it, for sure. Did not mean to be disrespectful, @Joy: Red Slash 17:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Did you just...

create an improbable redirect? 🤔 – robertsky (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't have page deletion rights, so I do that every time I have perform an RM like this. Red Slash 19:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

But you have pagemover user rights! Haha. Of which you can swap pages without leaving redirects. – robertsky (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	For writing WP:NOGOODOPTIONS; it and Wikipedia:Bartender's closing provide excellent advice - I hadn't realized that you wrote the former. BilledMammal (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much!! I throw a lot of stuff at the wall, and sometimes it sticks I'd never heard of the bartender page before, but I love it (and BD2414 is an excellent editor!). Thank you, I really appreciate it! Red Slash 00:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

RMCI

How about add a subRFC (or two) for the pending copy edits, might as well get them approved at same time? Selfstudier (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would know how to do that, exactly. I have been avoiding the RfC for a few days to preserve my sanity () but I can take a peek. Thank you for the idea. Red Slash 22:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I asked the question at the RFC because it seems better to me to try and avoid the outcome which is basically start over and get a better wording first. I suppose it depends on how attached one is to the existing text and/or what one is willing to change right now for a peaceful life? Selfstudier (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I mean, the proposed text is that way for a reason. I don't have the power to overturn everyone else's consensus that has been there for quite some time. But we can absolutely put up a sub-RfC. Red Slash 23:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

OK, maybe try it and see how far it gets, it doesn't need to be rfc tagged like a full RFC, just indent a sub heading between !votes and discussion, called idk, Discussion re alternative texts or something like that, and ask the questions "Should 1)'blah' 2) etc be included/changed/replaced" (might have to ping everyone who responded already). Could get complicated, what do you think? Selfstudier (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Take the hatted comments and write them as a Comment before your !vote or include it in your !vote (I know, bureaucracy). Selfstudier (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Mpox

I'm not happy with your closure comments per WP:RMNAC Non-administrators are reminded that closing a discussion calls for an impartial assessment of consensus or lack of it, although arguments supported by directly relevant policy and guidelines are given more weight (while keeping broader Wikipedia policy, guidelines, and consensus in mind). Any editor wishing to express an opinion on the requested move should join the discussion, not close it. (my bold) You several times expressed your personal opinion of the move (that you were much much much much much surprised monkeypox wasn't actually the common name, that the discussion should have been at RM, your views about which way the name should change in the event of no-consensus, your view that COMMNAME is "tempered" by NAMECHANGES, your view about the lead sentence). None of those are acceptable in a move closure. Not one. I think at this point it would be better if you just undo the move closure and let someone else who can remain impartial and accurately document things without letting personal views interfere. By all means register your own vote and opinions since you obviously feel very strongly about it. But it is not the job of the closer to use the close comments as a platform to air their strong views. Very much not.

Frankly, the fact that those joining via RM were all ignorant of article naming policy (specifically NAMECHANGES) makes me never want to touch that part of WP with a bargepole. The name change is not in fact, in reality, in the real world, controversial, though that may surprise you. For that reason, RM guidelines explicitly state RM should not be used. It only became "controversial" because some folk at RM got their nose out of joint. Which is pathetic and just wasted the time of good editors. -- Colin°^Talk 10:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• I came here to make a similar complaint, not knowing that Colin had already commented. Those closing comments were out of order in that you expressed your opinion. If you felt so strongly you should have joined the discussion. Graham Beards (talk) 10:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm super confused regarding this. None of what I expressed was my own opinion and all of it was expressed in the discussion. One exception, I guess: I expressed that I was ''surprised", sure, but that's kind of the point of evidence, to convince someone.

The longstanding title being the "default" is longstanding policy, going as far back as WP:BRD, and it's a moot point anyway because consensus was formed for "mpox".

That move requests should be filed through WP:RM is not a hot take and was mentioned many times in the discussion. Common name is of course "tempered" by NAMECHANGES, as per arguments you yourself made! Gall, are you trying to critique that I reworded what you yourself wrote? And I specifically did not express an opinion on the lead sentence, but recommended that a discussion continue. "Oh no, recommending discussion on Wikipedia? How dare he!"

I guess I just don't see--after reading this several times--how in the world I possibly could've irked you. What, are you upset for my statement that requested moves should be filed at Wikipedia:Requested moves? Red Slash 17:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Open up the page Wikipedia:Article titles. Scroll down to the section "Use commonly recognizable names" which has shortcut WP:COMMONNAME. Note to yourself that the subsection "Name changes" (which has shortcut WP:NAMECHANGES) is part of the overall section on common names. Slap face with palm of hand. It isn't "tempered" by that; it is part of that. When someone cites WP:COMMONNAME, especially someone coming from RM noticeboard or closing an RM, I expect them to know this. And I'd I expect editors to not need it pointed out that if a name was changed, old sources wouldn't miraculously use a name that was only invented Autumn 2022.

You also expressed an opinion that was dismissive of the longrunning discussion that started 28 November 2022 and was enacted by admin SilkTork confirming consensus to move on 28 January 2023. You can't just pretend that didn't happen or wasn't valid. That a month later someone who admitted to being unaware of the previous discussion, thought it should be moved back to the old name, is a new request. A "no consensus" result on that would mean they failed. Btw, anyone who thinks "WP:BRD" is "policy" has no place closing any discussions. I shall enquire where we do from here. -- Colin°^Talk 18:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm really struggling here. I feel like you're mostly just upset at the fact that an RM was filed at all. And okay, I get that, but IDK what you are intending to gain by trying to take it out on me. You have written a lot and yet I have to lament once again: I have no idea what your actual problem is. and obviously Wikipedia:Consensus is the policy which is explained by BRD, which normally a person wouldn't have to explicitly explain, but I am getting a little salty at these suggestions that I don't know what I am talking about. And either you don't understand what "tempered" means or I don't, but the idea that a subsection of COMMONNAME can't modify COMMONNAME because it's a subsection of COMMONNAME is weird and pedantic. Red Slash 18:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Colin. You have made right mess. Saying an opening sentence requires further discussion, ("I strongly recommend a full discussion on the wording of the lead sentence, specifically regarding how the word "monkeypox" should be included") is an opinion! It's tantamount to saying it's bad. Saying that the name monkepox being offensive is debatable is your opinion. Saying "That discussion should've been an RM" is your opinion. And as for "much much much much much to my surprise" - I'm lost for words. Who are you? A an expert on naming diseases? You expressed your opinions and then closed the discussion. What would have happened if I had done that? This is the most incompetent closure I have seen in my fifteen-years plus time here. Graham Beards (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Wait... are you saying that expressing any opinions in a closure is bad?? What?? How in the world is anyone supposed to judge a consensus without saying an opinion? Can you please find any move closure that does not include an opinion? (Note: "There was no consensus to move" is an opinion. "[There was a consensus to] move" is an opinion. "[There was a consensus to have] no move" is an opinion. What, are you suggesting that there's somehow an objective way to judge consensus??) Red Slash 19:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

You expressed opinions about the article! You hardly said anything about the long discussion. You got it wrong and you messed up.Graham Beards (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I hardly said anything about the discussion because the discussion was extremely one-sided--one side had sources to back its assertions, and the other side made assertions with no evidentiary support, so after I said that and closed it in favor of your side, there wasn't much else to say. I thought I was doing Colin a favor by pointing out what I thought was a really cool editorial discussion that--I'll be honest--I was concerned might get buried in the now-closed move request.

Anyway, looking over it, I've removed a couple of statements that I only included to calm anyone's concerns that I wasn't taking the "pro-monkey" side seriously. Hopefully you're a little happier now. Red Slash 19:20, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

You aren't supposed to express your opinion about the name. For crying out loud. I bolded the relevant guidance above. And yes I agree with Graham that your comments about the lead sentence demonstrate more that you seem to want to waste editors time than that you carefully read the discussion, where you'd find dozens of sources cited that make that lead sentence not only pass WP:V with flying colours, but have more WP:WEIGHT than a blue whale. The only opinion you should express, is about the consensus. . That there was consensus to keep the mpox name per WP:NAMECHANGES is all really that needed to be said. The rest was just a hot-head on the internet ranting. -- Colin°^Talk 19:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

RedSlash, keep the "The result of the move request was: Not moved (in other words, it stays at Mpox)." paragraph and the one currenty starting "fourth". None of the others belong in any shape or form. This isn't AN/I so it isn't your place to use an RM to lecture editors. You are there to state the closing decision and explain the reason. The reason is NAMECHANGES and the cited evidence supporting that and the lack of evidence supporting the contrary. End of. The rest is just you ranting. Do that, and I'll be very happy thank you. Colin°^Talk 19:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The first three belong because I'm making clear to the supporters that I read and understand both their procedural objections as well as their objections to the "offensive" argument. The fifth is for clarity, because Barrelproof linked that other RM and I decided not to close it. The sixth is because you held a huge long discussion about the lead sentence in the middle of a requested move, which is not an ideal place for that discussion because people will later tend to skim over that, thinking that the whole discussion is just about the requested move. It's a bad idea. It's like if you were to text your spouse:

"Remember to buy eggs, tortillas, cheese, and ham at the grocery store, we're getting evicted on Sunday, and please don't forget to pick up the dry cleaning"

It's going to be pretty easy for that bit in the middle to be overlooked. (And yes, you're right, I only briefly skimmed that discussion because it's not relevant to the requested move. So why in the world would I pronounce a "winner" in that discussion?) Red Slash 21:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

We only had a discussion about the sentence in the middle because someone said hold on, we should have a discussion about that. Which was frankly at that point, just another participant who hadn't read what had already been presented, and just jumped in with their own opinion. Your "I strongly recommend a full discussion on the wording of the lead sentence" is still there. Just what on earth do you think that "full discussion" will achieve? We're talking four words of article text, and I could cite forty sources all explicitly backing that up. Why on earth do you think that needs more discussion? So I can read more ignorant comments on the internet by people who appear to neither read the news nor have access to Google. As for the other arguments, it is clear you still don't understand how to close a discussion.

Can you please, for goodness sake, remove your strongly recommend. It is entirely disruptive. -- Colin°^Talk 23:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

No, I won't. I'm allowed to make recommendations as an editor--this had nothing whatsoever to do with the closing of the move. Holy cow dude, if you want to ignore that recommendation just ignore it, what the heck do you care what I recommend? Red Slash 00:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, if someone makes a fuss on that page about the lead sentence, and cites your closing remark, I will be sure to include the words "willfully disruptive" in my response when complaining about your closure, because you have plenty information right now to change it and you choose not to. -- Colin°^Talk 07:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::::::::Thanks for the concession. I am not happier but a little less annoyed. The problem is we had to get this right because it involves other articles. One discussion about the renaming the outbreak has been placed on hold awaiting the closure. A competent closure would have allowed us to say "this has all been resolved at Mpox". We can't do that now without concerns about it "not counting" because the closure was inept. Graham Beards (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I get that. That makes sense. Don't misunderstand me--I don't think you're crazy or anything and that's a reasonable concern--but like, I really don't think anyone's going to look at the Mpox closing that way. Don't worry about it. Feel free to say "this has all been resolved at Mpox". There was a strong consensus to keep the page at the short name, which was recognized in the closure. That's it, that's all that matters. Red Slash 21:34, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I've never seen two bigger malcontents whine about a discussion that actually closed in their favor. This is beyond petty. ValarianB (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

ValariantB, you didn't exactly shine in that debate yourself. -- Colin°^Talk 21:12, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm trying to have some grace; it's been helpful to see the very real concerns that they have, and assuming the best of them. Red Slash 21:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Despite your patronizing editorial comments, you made the correct decision on the name and so I am happy to assume good faith and move on. I suspect this RM discussion will be linked in the future as good example of how not to close a discussion. Graham Beards (talk) 10:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The closing comments are clearly biased. Calling other editors "blind" is beyond childish and, IMO, totally invalidates the entire discussion as a whole. WP:BADNAC to the extreme and arguably disruptive editing to Wikipedia. It should be reopened by Red Slash until an unbiased admin comes along. Whether I agree or not with the name change, a hot button topic should not be resolved in a manner that is obviously a WP:SUPERVOTE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you'd stand any realistic chance of arguing that the actual decision was not following consensus and policy. But I agree with you that insulting those who voted the against the outcome is unacceptable. -- Colin°^Talk 12:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The usage of biased language in every part of the closure makes it dubious whether it was following consensus OR policy. I am not an admin, so it's not my job to fully analyze the discussion, but I have no way to trust that Slash did either. The best thing they could do is apologize and reopen the discussion for an admin to close per WP:NACD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I hope you realize that your link is to the deletion process. Red Slash 21:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Well now you've literally suggested I called editors "blind" when I quite simply did not. "Blind assertions" mean assertions not backed up with facts or evidence, it doesn't mean that the editor themselves is somehow "blind". I didn't insult anyone. This is getting ridiculous. Red Slash 15:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello Red Slash. I'm sorry this RM has been so contentious and time-consuming. I think your close was right based on the evidence before you, but I too was surprised at your comment in your closing summary saying WP:RM should have been used previously. I cannot see support for that view in policy. WP:RM itself says A title may be disputed, and discussion may be necessary to reach consensus [...] The requested moves process is not mandatory, and sometimes an informal discussion at the article's talk page can help reach consensus. I note an administrator has since clarified this at Talk:Mpox#Comment_on_closure. I would think it better if workload on RM was reduced by having more Talk page discussions happening to resolve issues at an earlier stage!

Zxcvbnm, an admin has now confirmed Red Slash's decision. I hope that satisfies any concerns you have with respect to process and you can now reflect on the decision. Bondegezou (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, this was never meant to be so contentious. A requested move (through the formal RM process) would've definitely been better because A) an RM was inevitable anyway and B) it would've opened up discussion to the community at large, much like an RfC. That's why I said it "should've" been an RM. I didn't say "needed to be" because I didn't mean "needed to be"; I meant "should've been". But I get that people interpreted that as me saying that a discussion apart from the formal process was somehow invalid, and that's on me, so I've reworded that. Red Slash 21:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

It was the pointless RM that caused the problems and wasted an awful lot of time, all because its instigator didn't even notice the discussion that had already taken place. What would be good is if Wikipedia editors weren't so careless. Bon courage (talk) 04:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Hispania

Two quick comments here. First, something fishy is going on with the close template - I don't think it's got the end part, since it's absorbing the discussion below. Secondly, while I'm not interested in contesting the close, I would like to encourage you to temper your comment, particularly the somewhat dismissive "(of course) ... by far", regarding 'Arab' as alternative terminology. This does not seem reflective of the evidence presented. Perhaps you missed the case de-sensitized Ngrams, because the original Ngrams notably omitted "Arab Conquest of Spain" (fully capitalized), which relates to perhaps the single, most seminal work on the subject (and source of a third of the in-line references). In fact, if one requires caps, in a proper name title sense, the situation quickly reverses. The discussion also elaborated considerably on this terminology. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The template thing has been fixed now, so scratch that part. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Well said, thank you. I appreciate your input. I had originally said that there was a strong consensus for Muslim over Umayyad but you're right, there wasn't a strong, evidence-backed conclusive consensus about Muslim over Arab.

I've now edited the close. Thank you again. Red Slash 15:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Move review for Grey Goose (vodka)

An editor has asked for a Move review of Grey Goose (vodka). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Wait, why would you post a move review without discussion with the closer? Red Slash 21:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

There was already a discussion with one of the closers. How many closers do I need to consult with before we can get a wider look at the situation? —Locke Cole • t • c 02:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

One. Only with the closer who did the close that you're actually challenging and which the review is about. This is obviously RedSlashes (re)close, and not the original close, which you don't challenge and explicitly agree with. Logically, this will be the performer of the last close that still stands, so that the review can lead to an actionable outcome (potential overturning). Challenging a self-reverted close is moot anyway, and there would not be a need to notify any such prior closers. If something can't be overturned, it needn't be reviewed. —Alalch E. 08:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

It really makes me question the wisdom of WP:NAC if someone can just oppose the closure, and in the span of a few hours, convince the inexperienced adjudicator to self-revert and let someone else make the decision. What a shitshow. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

bruh people self-revert closures all the time, admins and not alike Red Slash 16:19, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, well I spent the better part of a month monitoring that discussion, being happy to see it relisted and gain a support !vote (which to me should have pushed the needle just enough to make it a weak consensus just on pure vote count, and a consensus if you weight !votes based on arguments). I saw the initial close and the initial request at WP:RMTR, then went about my day just to come back later to find that nearly a months work was flushed because of forum shopping. Thanks. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, and if you'd just explained that to me like you were required to, I'd have closed it as moved. I hate when people reject a move (that was duly closed!) at WP:RMTR and I would've procedurally closed it as moved without even looking for a consensus. I knew none of that and you just... up and dropped a move review without even discussing it with me. Red Slash 05:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I mean I explained the problem at the move review. I thought the initial reversion was enough to base that on. Either way, apparently it's over and done with now. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:38, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I feel your frustration with the process. Trust me, I know all about how frustrating it is to pour your heart into a move request and then get shot down by the closer. Happens to me all the time =/ Hopefully you can re-raise the idea later on down the line. (If you'll look carefully, in two of those three I linked, my side eventually did end up winning years down the road, because as much as inertia, ignorance, and poor closes can get in the way, ultimately better arguments do usually prevail here. Usually.) Red Slash 06:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth, this happened, so maybe what happened was for the best. I'd have felt a little off knowing someone abusing multiple accounts closed that RM... —Locke Cole • t • c 07:16, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@Locke Cole: It's been a few days, and the second RM is probably too procedurally contested to work. I am the only support !vote. If you prefer withdrawing instead of seeing this be closed by someone else, but can't because of my comment, I can strike it. —Alalch E. 11:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

How in the world was I supposed to know that such a discussion had taken place? Red Slash 15:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move of Alphonso XII

Let me be the first to throw a pitchfork: that was the most blatant supervote I've seen in a while. Why do we need editors deliberating and weighing criteria, why do we need specialized naming conventions, when you can decide it all on your own? I acknowledge you're a smart and knowledgeable guy, but... c'mon... please undo that closure. No such user (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Red Slash, No such user and I were on opposite sides of the debate, so I hope you will take seriously my showing up here attempting to recast the criticism as constructively as possible. Please graciously overlook No such user's tone, and consider very earnestly the suggestion that your summary of how the criteria apply to this case may be better / more helpfully placed as a vote rather than a close. Or, if you're inclined to decline (or perhaps even if you accept), I think a helpful thing you could do to make your assessment more complete is to add a couple sentences about the naming convention and what part it plays in your understanding of the discussion. Thank you for your service to these articles. Adumbrativus (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I don't believe I voted? I didn't have an opinion on the move itself, which is why I felt pretty good about performing closing instead. I don't know how much clearer I could be. Article titles are determined based on criteria at WP:Article titles. There are five main criteria that were all brought up and debated throughout the RM. Four of them were hotly contested, with equally good arguments on each side. One of them was proven to be in favor of one side of the debate. I just... don't get where the issue is. Red Slash 23:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi again, sorry for my non-acknowledgement of your response while I was away. Belatedly I just want to say I greatly appreciate your engagement with the rest of the commenters here. Thank you for your clarifications. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

... I'm not sure what you're expressing. (Though I definitely don't take offense!) I read the discussion and summarized the consensus in the close of the move. Did I make a mistake in my analysis? Did I need to explain that we use WP:AT to make decisions, and so all the arguments that were based on it were analyzed. All the major rules had equally strong arguments on each side, except for one, which was very much against the move. All the reasons I posted were taken directly from the discussion, and it seemed pretty no-brainer to me. Which policy was in favor of the move at Talk:Alfonso XII? Red Slash 21:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to contest your closure (I'll leave that to the others who've commented here if they so choose, mainly because I don't see a chance for consensus to develop), but I just wanted to point out a couple things.

First, WP:RECOGNIZABILITY was not argued to be a nonfactor, because obviously anyone familiar with Alfonso XII would no the article is about him, but the actual writing for the policy is Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.. So in all fairness, Alfonso XII (and the others listed) would be the "subject", but not necessarily "subject area", which could be Royalty, Spain, or more narrowly Spanish royalty. How many people familiar with royalty or Spain in general (not necessarily together) know Alfonso XII was king of Spain? Because of that I would argue recognizability leans toward Alfonso XII of Spain.

I also take issue with ngrams being used to demonstrate WP:COMMONNAME here. I would imagine at least a large part of those results which showed more results for "Alfonso XII" compared to "Alfonso XII of Spain", the usage of the former was always given with some context, with some mention of Alfonso's role. Estar8806 (talk) 03:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I mean, people definitely blindly asserted that people familiar with Spain wouldn't recognize a title like "Alfonso XII" as an article about a Spanish king, but their assertions weren't convincing. There was a whole boatload of "I mean, I don't recognize that Alfonso XII is referring to a royal from Spain", but like, sorry, one editor's lack of recognizance doesn't really mean much.

No such user, who's a fantastic editor, went and said "The Alfonsos are not household names"; I don't get the significance (WP:RECOGNIZABLE doesn't require something to be a "household name") or the validity (you sure they're not commonly known by those familiar with Spanish royals?) of that assertion. When it was challenged, No such user responded with "How many people would know who were Alfonso XII and XIII? Do you want me to conduct a survey of people on the street and publish it in a scientific journal so as to have a "reliable source"?" And I'm not intending to pick on him; there were a couple editors saying things like that! Do you see how people just randomly asserting things... fails to convince a closer? Do you see how the the claims to better recognizability were argued to be a nonfactor?

Finally, with respect you may well take issue with ngrams being used to demonstrate WP:COMMONNAME, and you may even be right! But unless I'm mistaken, you didn't take issue to them during the move request, so I daresay you can hardly blame me for not having taken your issues into account. Red Slash 08:03, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I hope my tone was received as intended -- as a friendly banter.
But seriously, we have a specialized naming convention, WP:NCROY that explicitly specifies Otherwise, kings, queens regnant and emperors and empresses regnant who are known as "first name + ordinal" (with the exceptions mentioned elsewhere) normally have article titles in the form "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}". Examples: Edward I of England; Philip IV of Spain; Henry I of France. and further states Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis, taking account of general article titling policy, e.g. Queen Victoria, Alexander Jagiellon. And the convention has been in effect for like 15 years, save for a brief period in 2021, with a general consensus of editors that CONSISTENCY and RECOGNIZABILITY should be given extra weight over PRECISION and CONCISE in this area, since many regnal names are reused or ambiguous between countries.
Fundamentally, this is the same as WP:USPLACE, which is (often grudgingly) accepted as the golden standard.
Now, your close fails to even acknowledge NCROY and editors' appeals to it, and boils down to "Alfonso XII is common, concise and precise enough, therefore no move". And even CRITERIA expressly states that However, in some cases the choice is not so obvious. It may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others. This is done by consensus. We have an existing consensus in this field, and it's NCROY. No such user (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree with No such user here: whilst well-intentioned, I do think the close was wrong, and that it should be overturned. I did support the move, but I think that, even if I did oppose it, I would still find the close problematic. Regards, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

NCROY was asserted to be, uhh... not particularly well-followed on Wikipedia. There was a very, very spirited discussion on that, which you took part in. Ultimately, the phrase from NCROY--"Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis"--pretty much dooms NCROY from being used as a unilateral cudgel.

If you like, I easily could rewrite the close to begin with "NC:ROY is an important guideline that prescribes the title Alfonso XII of Spain et al. However, NC:ROY also includes the important exception: 'Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis'. It was argued in the move request whether this case contained a basis to not move the four articles. The argument went as follows: ....."

I'm not even being snarky with this; you're right, I should've explicitly made clear how the case-by-case exception makes it very difficult to apply that standard format. Honestly, I should've closed it differently, you're convincing me. I'm reclosing it now, making clear that the real issue isn't the five criteria but rather, once the five criteria have been weighed and found to be against the move (which I'm not exactly retracting; I do stand behind that analysis), is this an exception to NCROY? Most of the discussion did not actually center on that, so it's only fair to say no consensus. Red Slash 17:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Contentious topic notice

You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to COVID-19, broadly construed, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Bon courage (talk) 06:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

April 2023

Hi Red Slash! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Bon courage (talk) 06:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Poop move close

Hey, would you mind undoing your RM close and possibly !voting instead? The way you've closed and worded your closing comes off as a super-vote given how close the discussion was. SportingFlyer T·C 00:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin, I think this close is correct, but might have counseled against a non-admin close for such a closely contested discussion. BD2412 T 01:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out!

My process looking at the move was analyzing the arguments, one by one, and seeing whether there was a consensus for those arguments that was backed in policy.

1. "Nothing has changed, so don't move" was quickly answered by the very next commenter, who pointed out that there has never been a consensus for the status quo

2. "Wikinav data is compelling" - no response given other than your "I'm actually surprised how low the click-thru numbers are for the 'primary' topic" which, while true, only mitigates the argument and does not refute it. "A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term"; 59% is less than some other primary topics to be sure, but it's certainly high enough to satisfy WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.

3. "No primary topic between the act and the product vis a vis educational significance" - highly compelling argument against the move that was never directly refuted

4. "People looking for the act should be typing in 'pooping', like in these other articles" - highly significant answer to the previous argument, which was also never refuted.

Ultimately I was convinced of the existence of a policy-based rough consensus to move by the fact that the wikinav data on its face satisfies the first PRIMARYTOPIC criterion (and was never argued not to satisfy it), and that the dispute regarding the second criterion, while valid, was answered to the satisfaction of many by the distinction between the gerund and the bare infinitive, as consistent with other articles and topics on Wikipedia.

I hope that explanation is to your satisfaction. Red Slash 16:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Red Slash, sorry to be difficult but the OP is definitely correct. There was no consensus as it stands, so please could you reopen and relist? If you agree with the proposal then feel free to cast a support vote. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional comment, Amakuru. I'll post on move review if it's not reopened. SportingFlyer T·C 15:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

With no disrespect at all, I can let you know that you can feel free to post that move review. Consider me unconvinced when I give a detailed reasoning as to why I found a consensus (not as to what side I "supported", but simply looking at whether or not there was a consensus), and am told "sorry to be difficult but the OP is definitely correct" with no hint at any reasoning. I take no offense, and I hope to have given no offense, but I stand by my analysis of the arguments. Red Slash 23:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Move review for Poop

An editor has asked for a Move review of Poop. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. SportingFlyer T·C 09:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikibreak

For several weeks, perhaps more. Red Slash 03:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

"Template:Use" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Template:Use has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 20 § Template:Use until a consensus is reached. Thryduulf (talk) 13:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

TERF move

Moved to Talk:TERF (acronym) § TERF move

Hello. I closed the RM discussion a few minutes ago at Talk:TERF, but I got confused regarding updating the links. Do we need to update all the current links that lead to "TERF" to "TERF (acronym)"? Because there is also consensus to retarget "TERF" to "gender-critical feminism". That means, if we only perform the move without updating the links, the instance of "TERF" in J. K. Rowling article will lead to gender-critical feminism. So, from that example Rowling article, do we need to update "TERF" to "TERF (acronym)"? —usernamekiran (talk) 03:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: I think it would be correct to update most of the existing links from [[TERF]] to [[TERF (acronym)|TERF]] and from [[TERF| to [[TERF (acronym)| with AWB, since the way it would be used in an article is in reference to people being called the term. It isn't particularly urgent though, given that in the meantime it would just be linking to another article related to the meaning of the term. SilverLocust 💬 03:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

(Well, obviously don't use AWB controversially.) SilverLocust 💬 04:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

While a few of the links may be used primarily in reference to the acronym and its history, I believe most of them are more likely to refer to the ideology, the primary meaning of the term. I can't think of a case where the article on the ideology wouldn't be a valid or suitable target. These two articles cover facets of the same topic, one main article on the ideology that also more briefly addresses terminology, and one in-depth article elaborating on the history of the acronym. So a link to the main article would never really be "incorrect". Hence, I think we should just go ahead and move it now. Editors can adjust the links in the (relatively few?) articles that refer specifically to the history of the word itself rather than the ideology, but I don't consider that very urgent. I don't think it's necessary to change all those links en masse, and I believe it's more likely that the main article on the ideology is a more suitable target in most cases anyway. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 04:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

• Based on the discussion here, I think it is safe to move the pages. I have already edited the templates to update "TERF" to "TERF (acronym)|TERF". Thank you everybody. —usernamekiran (talk) 06:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

• That is a bit premature, I was not even awake. I opposed the move and still do. Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

late response-- wasn't awake. after reading through the discussion, I'm fine with the move. didn't really see the discussion until after the close. I'd say that it'd make more sense to switch redirects from TERF to TERF (acronym) instead of TERF to gender-critical feminism. Dawnbails (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Not sure why this whole thing is taking place on my talk page but I'm not complaining. The reason TERF can't redirect to TERF (acronym) is WP:MISPLACED--basically, we never ever redirect from X to X (thing). A move from X to X (thing) is implicitly (or explicitly) with the goal to redirect X elsewhere. Red Slash 15:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

A very good point, page moves can't be discussed on user talk pages. Slatersteven (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Updating the links is something that people will do as needed. Most of the time when TERF is linked, it's about the ideology instead of the acronym, anyway. I wouldn't worry about it Red Slash 15:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Sending

I think this is now good enough for mainspace (and once there, to serve as the primary topic target for Send and Sent). What do you think? Any holes to fill? BD2412 T 05:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it was ready even several days ago! I can't believe you created an entire article with eleven high-quality references out of thin air, almost entirely by yourself. Honestly, WP:DYK would love this, I think. Just another masterpiece from you, really good job. Red Slash 15:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, that's too flattering. Thanks! I have swapped the article into mainspace, and will initiate move requests for Sender, Send, and Sent forthwith. BD2412 T 15:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Nah, honestly you deserve it. You're an ace at the back end and the front of Wikipedia, significantly improving access to information the world over. I really admire it. Red Slash 17:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I have been needing to hear that. I have been receiving a lot of flack these days, from all angles. BD2412 T 20:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Rubicon

An article that you have been involved in editing—Rubicon —has been proposed for merging with Crossing the Rubicon. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

"HNoMS Helge Ingstad (F313" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect HNoMS Helge Ingstad (F313 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 3 § HNoMS Helge Ingstad (F313 until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Kansas and Missouri for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kansas and Missouri is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kansas and Missouri until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

NotAMoleMan (talk) 02:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Bush (band)/to do

Could you possibly move this to your userspace considering it looks like a joke page? It's currently showing up at User:Certes/Reports/Talk with redirected parent, and while I normally move to do's, this one really doesn't seem like it should be in main/talkspace. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

That's an old one, holy cow. Done Red Slash 16:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Elias Huizar for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Elias Huizar is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elias Huizar until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Lettlre (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

A page you created has been nominated for deletion because it is a biography of a living person that is entirely negative in tone and contains unsourced content, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create articles about living people that are entirely negative in tone and unsourced. Wikipedia has a policy of verifiability and any negative information we use must be reliably sourced, and our articles must be balanced. Negative, unreferenced biographies of living people, along with other attack pages, are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy may be blocked from editing. Jfire (talk) 02:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Red Slash. Thank you for your work on Pronunciation of Louisville. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!

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

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 09:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@SunDawn: Aww, thank you! I didn't see this message originally. I'm glad someone appreciated the article I wrote! Red Slash 07:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Genocide of indigenous peoples#Requested move 25 May 2024

There was absolutely no consensus [edited] on this move. This clearly a controversial discussion, and "non-admins often focus on closing less controversial discussions. There is a limited latitude for non-admins to close discussions that are potentially controversial."[2] In the discussion, I opposed. oncamera, Netherzone, ARoseWolf, Freoh, CaroleHenson, Selfstudier, PersusjCP, Amakuru, Randy Kryn, and Hydrangeans opposed. Just because we have lives outside of Wikipedia and don't want to rehash our same arguments over and over, week after week in this endless discussion to trigger yet more WP:BLUDGEONING doesn't mean we don't stand by our viewpoints. Yuchitown (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Red Slash, can you definitely say that you read, analyzed and weighed all of the comments, voices and associated links in the discussion before making your closure? Netherzone (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Why is an non-admin closing the discussion with very little insight to their decision? It's clear this closure needs more oversight.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 01:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree there was no census for this decision; we don't count votes, so no census would be required. I have no idea why you felt compelled to ping a whole boatload of people. Are you expecting me to be impressed that multiple people opposed a move request? The existence of oppose voters does not imply a lack of consensus.

I've closed well over a hundred move requests, including many controversial ones. My closures have been taken to WP:MRV and vindicated eight different times; you're welcome to go for a ninth, but please think it over carefully, since move review takes a very long time. Yes, I read and weighed every comment in the discussion. If you would like, I can elaborate a lot more.

The request largely turned on whether capitalizing "indigenous" was more common; conceding that it wasn't, the other crux of the argument was whether it was "correct" to capitalize it even if it wasn't the most common. Point A was overwhelmingly clear and well sourced in favor of the move; point B was heatedly (though mostly respectfully!) debated, and the general consensus was that if it does not refer to a specific group of people, it ought not to be capitalized.

The consensus was broad-ish, though not overly strong. Because of this, I concede that a reasonable person might view it as if there were no consensus. But practically speaking, that's the same thing; the long-standing title is uncapitalized, so that's where the page would revert back to, anyway.

I hope this answers your questions! Red Slash 06:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Red Slash, thank you for offering to "elaborate a lot more.". Please do. Netherzone (talk) 08:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Point A was not overwhelmingly clear and well sourced. It was showed in countless reliable sources that Indigenous is capitalized. You know, reliable sources which we are told are foundational for Wikipedia, unless of course it's in favor of a bigoted and racist old world viewpoint directed at Indigenous people that they are third rate human beings not deserving of the same respect given other races and cultures when we capitalize their race or culture. Being Indigenous is not the same as the other descriptors that were offered in the discussion. In fact in most instances news media would put Indigenous ahead of offering those descriptors. Indigenous vegan, Indigenous grandfather, Indigenous mayor, Indigenous person.

Based on your response above, I believe you are not fit to close such a discussion. This bares out in your condescending remarks to Yuchitown's challenge. The fact that you have to mention that you view the discussion as "mostly respectful" says a lot in and of itself. The fact you decided to tout your record as if it is some feather in a cap that has any meaning whatsoever to anyone outside your own viewpoint of yourself just reflects your poor ability to explain your closures and your lack of caring when it comes to the affects this closure has on the community and the encyclopedia. People who don't have an over inflated ego don't have to tout their record. All of this seems to indicate, if nothing else, you had no desire to close this discussion respectful of the opposing viewpoints and accurately according the discussion regardless of whether the action, in the end, is basically "the same thing" in your estimation. If a reasonable person would close as no consensus then is what you should have closed it as if you are a reasonable person, which you seem to claim you are not and the evidence would bare that out in your responses. Again it's about ego or its about your personal viewpoint of the discussion and not about what's best for the encyclopedia, fellow editors, the community or even the best solution in the discussion. Ego and record and defiance at being challenged. How dare you "indigenous" (third rate) people challenge my closure. See my record and be intimidated. --ARoseWolf 11:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree there was no census for this decision; we don't count votes, so no census would be required: That Yuchitown clearly meant consensus and not census, and merely made a minor typo, seems so obvious that you have either genuinely misunderstood Yuchitown or are deliberately mocking them; in either case, it calls into question your fitness to close the discussion. As ARoseWolf avers, such behavior comes across as insufficient respect for the community participating in the discussion.

You state that Point A was overwhelmingly clear and well sourced in favor of the move, but it did not seem to be. Proponents of lowercasing the word kept circling back to Google Ngrams without resolving the problem of Ngrams making no distinction between reliable and unreliable sources. A claim was made that the word "Indigenous" rarely appears outside academic literature, but this wasn't true, as my own comment points out it appears (lowercased) in missionary literature, travel memoirs, and other texts we wouldn't consider reliable, academic, best sources.

To the extent that a reasonable person might view it as if there were no consensus, then the discussion should've been closed as no consensus instead of closed as consensus. This makes it sound like you've treated the closure as a super vote. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 13:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for my typo! Yuchitown (talk) 13:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Definitely feels like a super vote to me PersusjCP (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, just for my edification, how are you determining "stable title" in this case? Selfstudier (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

"Australia national soccer team" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Australia national soccer team has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 11 § Australia national soccer team until a consensus is reached. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Ivory Coast closure

You are going to have to do some deep explaining as to why the strength of argument for Cote dIvoire was more convincing than Ivory Coast. We saw nothing new from the last series of failures where the ngrams were pretty much thrown aside as way too limiting. Even the person who started this RM says this was the wrong closing. At the most I thought maybe this could be no consensus as opposed to a simple "not moved", but I'm still scratching my head. Other than ngrams is there any earthly reason to move this article? Maybe you can satisfy my curiosity before I decide on a potential move review. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Just in case you ended up here, much of the post-move review discussion has taken place at Talk:Côte_d'Ivoire#Post-move_review. JuniperChill (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I just wanted to voice my support for the close as correct on policy. This is clearly one of those discussions where feelings are so strongly locked in on opposing sides that it is impossible to close it at all, with any outcome, without some participants being unhappy and initiating a move review. I salute those administrators who are willing to close the hard cases. Without you, the backlogs would be eternal. BD2412 T 15:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Move review for Genocide of indigenous peoples

An editor has asked for a Move review of Genocide of indigenous peoples. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Yuchitown (talk) 14:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Move review for Côte d'Ivoire

An editor has asked for a Move review of Côte d'Ivoire. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks

Just here to say THANKS Red Slash! - Sasha Waters hockeymom (talk) 13:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate it greatly! Red Slash 16:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

"A Feminist Perspective" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect A Feminist Perspective has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 14 § A Feminist Perspective until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 19:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

"Chikkin" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Chikkin has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 2 § Chikkin until a consensus is reached. cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)