User talk:S Marshall

July music

story · music · places

Today is Bastille Day, commemorated by a DYK as my "story" and a visit to the Bastille Opera in "music". I like the interview coming with the story, on the day before the big event, but for pomp and circumstance, the affair with 600 singing children and orchestra, and the singer dressed in the national flag, was also captured on videos, much slower. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Three Ukrainian topics were on the main page today, at least at the beginning, RD and DYK, - see my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Three of "my" recent deaths bios are on the main page right now, one my story today, Gary Karr, and I loved to find his breakthrough concert in 1962 as a video. In my music today I match it with 9 other double bassists, 7 conducted by a person who's birthday is today - coincidence ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Béatrice Uria-Monzon and her story, Julia Hagen and her no story --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

On Bach's day of death, I decorated my user pages in memory of his music, and my story ends on "peace". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:08, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Jahrhundertring remembered, with the picture of a woman who can't believe what she has to see (I used that once for an argument for Götterdämmerung (still on the talk). - Nice to meet you for Doris Gercke, and sorry about my typo. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:06, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Changes to WP:V

In this discussion, you argued that we have no policy requiring citations to appear on the same page as the material they support. I responded that we do, as WP:V requires the material to be "accompanied by an inline citation". Several editors proposed clarifying the policy, and you advised us that any such changes to a core content policy needed to be properly workshopped on WT:V. You then made undiscussed changes to WP:V to remove the wording I had just cited. Please help me understand your thinking here.--Trystan (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

• Alanscottwalker and Alpha3031 opined that workshopping on the talk page wasn't necessary. I thought I'd see if they were correct. (They weren't: I was reverted almost instantly.)—S Marshall T/C 17:06, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

  Hmm? I think I argued that the policy is already 'clear' when inline cites are required (which generally leads to no change is necessary), not that I was specifically addressing whatever change you would like to make, nor how you should go about that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Doris Gercke

On 5 August 2025, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Doris Gercke, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Curbon7 (talk) 09:36, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

You have been awarded 2 points!

I hereby award you 2 points for coining the phrase "malicious compliance event horizon." Well done! (Seriously, according to Google, you're the first person on the internet to use that brilliant phrase, although there is an album that has songs called "Malicious Compliance" and "Event Horizon." They're not very good though, IMO.) Levivich (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

• Wahoo! Two points for Slytherin!—S Marshall T/C 19:15, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

POSTNOM close

Re: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#RfC Regarding MOS:POSTNOM. I'm genuinely astonished that you could find no consensus and yet find a reason to enact changes to the wording in question—changes that fly in the face of the previous RfC held just two years ago. The close is very arguably, or perhaps definably, a bullet point #3 supervote. That said, I can see why you feel the way you do after reading the discussion. I'd ask you to reverse your close, contribute your opinion in the discussion section, let another administrator assess the consensus, and open another RfC once this one has been closed. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 02:26, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

• I'm confused by this request. What I found was consensus to overturn the 2023 RFC but no consensus about what to replace it with, and I did say so rather clearly.—S Marshall T/C 07:19, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Quoting from your close: "There is, simply put, no consensus about what to do ... This RfC doesn't resolve it." On this, we'd agree. In my view, the RfC showed no consensus for any of the presented options. But to then conclude from that no consensus that "The 2023 RfC is quashed and set aside"—again, the status quo for two years as established by previous consensus—was a surprise. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 08:14, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
    • Yes: This is WP:BARTENDER. The 2023 wording doesn't enjoy community support. If I allowed it to continue then that would be a backdoor option 2 outcome, which the community has rejected.—S Marshall T/C 08:29, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
      • WP:BARTENDER says in part that a bartender's close in a discussion occurs where there is an initial proposal to take some action, and a discussion in which there is a clear consensus to make a change from the status quo, but not to make the specific change originally proposed (emphasis mine). I don't see how you came to the conclusion that there was consensus for a change from the status quo; indeed, you say there is no consensus that any change is needed. A two year old RFC is certainly a status quo ante; it's not like this was a hot off the press decision. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:26, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
      • HouseBlaster said it better than I could; thank you. I'll only add that there being no firm consensus for option 2 ≠ the community "has rejected" it. Indeed, your close noted that there was support for that option, but not enough for a consensus. To me, the current RfC shows no consensus to change the current wording. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 20:41, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
        • If that previous RfC had been a slam dunk clear outcome, then yes, I agree that it should have survived this; but it wasn't. It was an extremely marginal call that wouldn't have survived a close review. Fundamentally, what's written in that MOS page isn't a fair reflection of what the community feels about this, and to leave it in place after all that discussion is not the right outcome.
          I'm going to decline to revise that close. Close review is thataway.—S Marshall T/C 20:52, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

          I definitely think this belongs at AN, but I am currently away and don't want to try to AN post from mobile. Ed, if you are able to make that post, I'd be grateful. I'll end by saying to you, S Marshall, that I have a deep respect for your closing abilities, and that is not changed by the fact I think this one was wrong—thank you for all you do /gen :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:02, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

          • • You want me to start it? I'm very happy to!—S Marshall T/C 22:18, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
              • +1, if it wasn't already clear I also have no personal animus. However, I do unfortunately have to push back again on your thoughts on the previous RfC. That you would have closed it differently is immaterial, as you did not close it nor did anyone bring forward a formal appeal, and using that view to enact a backdoor option 1 doesn't seem appropriate. I've listed this for review at AN and look forward to your contributions there. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 22:28, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
• Pretty much as I anticipated: the review was listed around midnight in the UK, and got an initial rush of overturners. Now the Brits are coming home from work, we'll get the endorsers.—S Marshall T/C 17:14, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

List of contributors

I had a bit of trouble understanding your post here, can you please elaborate? --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:32, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

• This is really obscure I know, but there are other ways to preserve attribution that aren't history merges. See for example this edit? There might be a way for you to repair article histories without varying your topic ban, is what I'm coming to.—S Marshall T/C 07:32, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

August music

story · music · places

Today's story - short version: ten years ago we had a DYK about a soprano who sang in concerts with me in the choir, - longer: I found today a youtube of an aria she sang with us then, recorded the same year, - if you still have time: our performances were the weekend before the Iraq war ultimatum, and we sang Dona nobis pacem (and the drummer drummed!) as if they could hear us in Washington. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Check out my talk for an Independence day, or: the pic of Oksana Lyniv was taken on 24 August. There's listening and reading in today's story, and I like both. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

On top of my talk: birthday of a great violinist and Requiem for a great friend. We sang Paradisi gloria from the Stabat Mater in the end. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

ghastly usability catastrophe?

It's not that bad. I started out using troff and ed (later, emacs), so I'm as old-school as it gets (and a grumpy old curmudgeon into the bargain). I use VE all the time. There's certainly some things it could do better, and some things it does really badly, but hand editing wiki markup isn't a shining example of a usability win either :-) RoySmith (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

• ---->

  

—S Marshall T/C 17:34, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

John Fraser (Canadian soccer) deletion review

Hey, with your close of the deletion review, you say that there is established consensus for a redirect, which is problem if there is no consensus to overturn, considering that a deletion review is not the place to gather new consensus. I know you cite WP:NOTBURO for why this is okay, but it ignores that fact that this discounts the editors who chose not to engage in new arguments in deletion review, as they are supposed to. Deletion review needs to be limited to assessing an AfD close to stop it from becoming a round 2 for the AfD. Allowing a DRV to have the same results as a new AfD sets a dangerous precedent, and also ignores those who stayed on topic in the DRV in favor of those continuing to make AfD arguments. I hope you will reconsider the wording of your close. – Ike Lek (talk) 23:27, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

• The rule preventing re-arguing the AfD does exist, and it's normally respected, but on this occasion the community set that rule aside. This occasionally happens when the community judges that to be in the encyclopaedia's best interests.—S Marshall T/C 23:37, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

  I agree it wasn't respected by all, but there was no agreement to set it aside, and thus this punishes those who respected the rule. Ike Lek (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

  Yes it does, and yes, in that respect it's not very fair. I do see that. I still think my close accurately summarises what the community decided.—S Marshall T/C 00:13, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

  It is unclear what the DRV is closed as anyway. Your edit summary says "no consensus, but redirect", which seems like a pretty strong unilateral decision to ignore procedure. I get it is a difficult close that is bound to get pushback regardless of how it was closed. I'm not unsympathetic, but it needs to be clearer than this. This situation of such high contention does not seem like the best time to depart so far from the frameworks we have in place.

  -

  (Everything past here is personal to me and not essential to my point. You are free to skip reading it if you like, but I want to say it.)

  As much as I tend to be an inclusionist, I didn't participate in the original AfD because I couldn't find a justification for keeping the article that I actually believed in and wasn't just for the sake of arguing. I don't actually disagree with the redirect outcome being a good place to end up, but every step along the way continuously rewarded those who use underhanded tactics to abuse the systems we rely on. This is the reverse for me of what happened here, where I disagreed with the final outcome, but care about upholding the process even when I don't agree with the results. WP:IAR is very important, but, as I'm sure you know, needs to be handled with care, and rarely should be a unilateral action from an admin on this scale. Frustratingly, as in many areas of the world, sometimes bureaucratic inefficiency is necessary to prevent exploitation from bad actors, which I believe to be currently widespread in AfDs. Ike Lek (talk) 00:51, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

  What's unclear? There's no consensus to overturn but the community's clearly minded to redirect this content and anyone can do that.

  Ironically, in 2009 when I'd only been a Wikipedian for about three years and I too was ideologically inclusionist, it was one of Stifle's DRV closes that taught me to ignore process. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 24, if you're curious or bored.—S Marshall T/C 01:05, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

  Firstly, it just says "closed" and not a result, which is a bit unclear. Secondly, a DRV cannot reflect what the community is "clearly minded" to, as it only represents a small subsection of the community who participate in DRV, and an even smaller subsection who misuse the forum to continue arguing the AfD. If we are going to have discussion to build consensus, it should be known to everyone involved that is what is happening. For instance, I couldn't claim there is community consensus to delete Podpolichno because I got five people to agree in the talk page of Aponia itzalis because that isn't the right place to build consensus for that topic, and those wishing to keep the article wouldn't be reasonably expected to know to participate in that discussion in that forum. If new consensus is being actively built, everyone involved should know that is what is going on. I'm not saying this is true, but maybe those not wanting a redirect were simply more respectful of the DRV rules? The way to account for this sort of possibility is to make sure everyone has the opportunity to participate in a forum where they know the potential outcomes being discussed. Using a discussion of whether a close is proper to determine a greater consensus on the article subject is like electing a politician for a second term in a challenge to the legitimacy of their first election. Ike Lek (talk) 01:36, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, there isn't a two-word pithy summary in bold. People just have to read the whole paragraph.

  I think that's a representative discussion. I think all the reasoned viewpoints of interested parties are fully expressed and taken into account. At some point we have to stop discussing and make a decision.—S Marshall T/C 01:42, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

  [Later] I've been thinking about what you meant by necessary bureaucratic inefficiency. Do you mean what MeatballWiki calls FairProcess, or are you more concerned about evil people misusing our processes to engineer the outcomes they want?—S Marshall T/C 01:27, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

  A little of both. "Evil" is a strong word here, but misguidedly destructive, sure. Incentive structures do matter. I think what is most important to me is everyone knowing what is actually up for discussion. You cannot hold a fair election through an impromptu poll of a group of active protesters because it would have a significantly different result from a planned election process where everyone knows they have a chance to vote in advance and can choose to show up. Ike Lek (talk) 01:39, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

  Well that's interesting. I tend to disagree that there are shadowy forces of destruction at work but the idea of notifying relevant people in a planned election process is a new one. Are you suggesting advance notification? "An AfD on this article will start in 3 days. Please prepare your sources and arguments now." Might improve decision making at that.—S Marshall T/C 01:47, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

  I wouldn't call them "shadowy forces of destruction", just people who have the misguided belief that things would be better if they had full control, and will do whatever it takes to get the outcomes they want. The type of people who believe they would be "benevolent dictators" if they just had all the power and don't see the inherent flaws in that regardless of their good intent.

  As for planned AfDs, I don't think that is necessarily a bad idea, and it is something I have thought about, but that isn't at all what I was proposing. More so, I believe AfD results should be obtained in an AfD, rather than a DRV or any other forums not explicitly designated for that sort of discussion. For a discussion to be both productive and representative, everyone needs to know what is on the table being discussed. I assumed arguments that continued the AfD in the DRV would be ignored by the closer because that is explicitly what is supposed to happen, and thus didn't bother responding to a lot of them. I assume others did the same.

  Imagine you in a structured competitive debate on the topic of a gun ban, and at the end the judge says, "well, we don't have a winner on guns, but the other guy wins the debate because they convinced me that we should abolish daylight savings." You would be confused because in your head and on paper that just isn't what was being debated, and you would have made very different arguments if you knew it mattered to how you were judged. Ike Lek (talk) 02:07, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

  I just saw this. I don't see how the community set anything aside. I opposed the AFD, and spoke at DRV. However I refrained from entering new evidence, because AFD is there to look at the close, and not to relitigate. If there's consensus to set this aside (where did that discussion happen?) can you reopen the DRV so those of us who were following guidelines can make the opposite case? Or start a pro-forma AFD. I certainly don't think people should be reverting the reversions of redirect, without starting another AFD on the subject. Nfitz (talk) 17:32, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

  @Nfitz: Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#Your thoughts, please.—S Marshall T/C 22:55, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

  No one else seems to have thoughts. And nothing on the talk page. I really don't see much alternative other than reverting the redirect and adding the sources raised in the AFD. Nfitz (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

  If you put something on the talk page, and the people insisting on keeping it redirected don't respond adequately because their preferred version is in place, then you have the moral high ground. —Cryptic 01:33, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

  ^^ This.—S Marshall T/C 06:51, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

  We could start a discussion in a third location (4th if you count the now-closed DRV). Though I hear that Wikipedia is WP:NOTBURO. Nfitz (talk) 22:09, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  I just have too much going on in my life to have time to hash this out again. I've said my points, and I don't think it is a good use of my time to repeat them. At the end of the day, I don't even disagree with the end result, just the process we used to get there. Ike Lek (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's a procedurally unfair thing about how Wikipedians make decisions. It's one of several.

• Discussions are closed after a random interval. There's no way to predict which side will get the last answer before closure.
• Closers are self-selecting and not elected. There's no way to predict who will close a discussion.
• There's no training for closers and no ongoing supervision or development.
• The people who started an article aren't necessarily told about an AFD. There's no requirement to tell them.
• The people who edited it aren't necessarily told, and there's no requirement to tell them.
• The people who participated in an AFD aren't necessarily told about a DRV.
• DRVs are hard to review. Technically it can be done, and has been on a few occasions, but no formal close challenge of a DRV close has ever succeeded. Where a DRV close does get overturned, it's because an inexperienced DRV closer had a go, and a more experienced one simply reverted them.
• There are rules and guidelines, but closers and discussion participants can ignore them.
• A decision to ignore the rules is rarely explicit. Nobody goes: "Hey this is hard, let's ignore the rules here." The closer has to infer that IAR is happening from people's behaviour.

Wikipedian decision making structures aren't actually designed to be fair. To the extent that they're designed at all, rather than just ad hoc procedures that someone made up that have become ossified, they're designed to be agile and flexible, to get to an actionable decision, and then to move on.

These factors combine to make things feel quite unfair, particularly to the losing side. I'm often frustrated by Wikipedian decisions myself.—S Marshall T/C 08:25, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I came here knowing there'd be a discussion! Thank you for your close which was smarter than I had been able to think of. A little-mentioned feature complicating a redirect close was that two redirect targets had been proposed with no clear resolution at AFD or DRV. That also supports a talk page discussion. Those advocating redirection (sometimes as a "second best") seemed to be avoiding that issue. Thincat (talk) 08:58, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Context re NOR

Thanks for this reply at Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Context. It was very informative. Especially interesting was that you didn't know what a monologue in a comedy show was. If I had seen a wikilink to it, I probably would have removed it as WP:OL! I didn't know this term for the opening comedy routine was not more universally known by that name, but given the countless cultures who speak English, it makes sense that it could be a confusing or unfamiliar use of the word for people not familiar with numerous U.S. TV programs that have one.

I've seen such monologues since my childhood with Johnny Carson, who I thought may have been the first to do it on TV, but Google search doesn't give him credit citing 1950s shows--before my time.

I started working on a reply about other aspects of the kind of bias on en.Wiki to U.S. audiences, but I decided I need to work on it more. Hopefully I won't take forever getting back to you on that. I think we might see some similar problems that came up in your little story about your reading of that article. Whether those problems could be solved seems unlikely, but still worth discussing.

I might end up just replying here instead. I also need to catch up on the other replies. I'm glad that discussion is going on, because it seems to me that what is and is not appropriate for context is not that well defined--at least anywhere I could find, which is why I asked the question... --David Tornheim (talk) 06:19, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

P.S. I noticed in that reply you used the word "American". I talked to a few people from South and/or Central America who think it is unduly arrogant for people of the U.S. to talk about themselves as the only "Americans", when they consider themselves American too. I was a bit surprised by this. Never heard a Canadian say this. Regardless I try to avoid the term when referring to U.S. people.

I am fond of the term "Native American" to remind people who live here that most of the land "owned" by people in the U.S. is basically stolen land by violent invaders/colonizers who genocided the indigenous people to take their land, including the revered "founding fathers" like George Washington. However, I am told Native Americas often prefer to identity with their tribe. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:36, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

• Hi David, and welcome to my talk page!

  I'm British. The land I live on was stolen from the Vikings by the Normans. The Vikings stole it from the Saxons who stole it from the Ancient Britons and so on right the way back to the Beaker People about whom we know virtually nothing that you can't tell from pottery. We've stolen nearly half the world, and then given most of it back---slightly broken.

  I do know what a monologue is in comedy. English law and broadcasting practice would prevent a political monologue in a current affairs programme. There would have to be someone else to challenge and give balance.—S Marshall T/C 07:50, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

  When I wrote about U.S., I was indeed thinking about the various conquests of the land that is currently Britain.

  I do know what a monologue is in comedy. Ok. When you said

  In my world a monologue is when a character from Shakespeare addresses the play audience, so I presume that this is Mr Kimmel talking directly to camera like a newsreader, even though this is a talk show?

  I thought you were saying that the word seemed odd for the context of this comedy show. Of course, we were taught Shakespeare in school, but most of U.S. people spend far more time watching Kimmel or other talk show hosts than going to plays.

  I certainly don't know the regulations in Britain with regard to balance, which stopped being required under Reagan's elimination of the Fairness doctrine. So news stations here are unreasonably partisan. Rereading the part Mystified about this, I look in vain for a wikilink and then use the search bar for opening monologue. I get an article about stand-up comedy, and this seems to be current affairs. I'm not certain what you meant by "current affairs." That sounds more like news, and Kimmel is definitely not a news program. Maybe you were suggesting the article failed to identify Kimmel's program as a Late-night talk show? Those shows were *never* balanced and the monologues I've seen all my life often skewered the president at the time. I guess I assumed the British comedy shows--like Monty Python--did the same.

  There was nothing remotely unusual about Kimmel's show that night except that Trump used his power to try to silence Kimmel.--David Tornheim (talk) 09:05, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

  As I understand it these programmes involve interviews and the free exchange of opinions about current affairs? They're not sketch shows. The Pythons were absurdist humour without current affairs. We do have sketch shows about current affairs, but they wouldn't be mixed with interviews or serious political points, and they would mostly comprise satire. No TV presenter would ever have free rein to give us their personal opinions about politics direct to camera.

  In India the media landscape is even more alien. Because of the issues described in our article on paid news in India, Indian broadcasters don't disclose when they've been paid or what they've been paid for. The Jimmy Kimmel business would be hard to follow for Indians too, but for very different reasons.—S Marshall T/C 09:25, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Survey

Hi and thanks for your recent participation in AfD. I would like to hear your thoughts about the process. Please check this survey if you are willing to respond.Czarking0 (talk) 02:00, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Selectively transcluding references

Around a year ago at the at Split proposal for List of common misconceptions, you wrote:

My thought was that we could use LST to selectively transclude the references, so the child articles include full references, but the parent article only displays one citation per entry.—S Marshall T/C 21:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

and you perhaps recall WhatamIdoing's "editors would revolt" response just after it. I wasn't around for that discussion, unfortunately, but in theory, your idea of somehow transcluding references was a good one, but LST just wasn't the right implementation of it, for reasons stated in the reply.

But that doesn't mean there cannot be a solution along those lines, and if selective transclusion of references is something you are still interested in, you might have a look at {{Reflib}}. It's still in its infancy, but the goal is to do something like what you were proposing there, but in a (hopefully) less clunky manner. There are some objections to it on technical grounds, mainly due to false positive harv warnings that result (all citation-wrapping templates have the identical issue) but there is a workaround for that. {{Reflib}} works well enough, although improvements are possible. I haven't done much with it lately, but to see it in action, have a look at examples French criminal law#Works cited or Ships of ancient Rome#Works cited, and the citations that link to them in those articles. If there's interest, we could perhaps go further with it. Mathglot (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

• Oh, that's interesting. How can I help?—S Marshall T/C 07:17, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

I am much obliged for your closure of the MoS RfC that I started. If you think me mad, or a fool, be assured that I am indeed both. In any case, I remain, as always, in awe of your good cheer. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 23:28, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

ARCA request closed

Hello, the clarification request rearding conduct in deletion related editing has been closed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment/Archive_133#Clarification_request:_Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing, with a consensus that TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is allowed to remove WP:PRODs as well as improve articles that have been PRODded. Regards, ~delta ^{(talk • cont)} 17:26, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	This detailed explanation is the kind of thing I'd been hoping for with my post at Wikipedia:Closure requests. I hope that the newcomer will find it informative, even though they will probably be disappointed with the overall result. Thank you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:RFC close at Talk:Hrvatska

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:23, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Advance UK

Hi S Marshall, thanks for your close of RfC on if Advance Uk should be described as far-right or right-wing to far right. As a minor detail the RfC was based on "the infobox and lead", whereas the close suggests it was only the infobox. Probably not a big deal as it's referenced in the question but thought I'd reference it. Otherwise I'd say you were right to question things, I had originally added to CR as I got the impression an involved close might of occurred; afterall there was snow consensus, so I could have understood the rationale for that, but thought best avoided if possible. Anyway I realise it was good you questioned things, so that we could question ourselves further, even if it landed the same result. I realise my tone might of not come across in that manner (when making an argument for something that is), so thought I'd clarify. Regards, CNC (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Zizians

Just a note to say I appreciate your efforts on the Zizians RfC close. I imagine others may have taken a look and decided to pass, but you took it up. Thoughtful, careful work. Thank you. Patternbuffered (talk) 13:50, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Consolation prize but SFR won with 703 vs 684 words. Nice try tho! Polygnotus (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

November music

story · music · places

Look, today's image, - she "portrayed" herself with her husband at the end of the table, - would have been good for Thanksgiving ;) -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Thoughtful close

I'm a month late, but thank you for your thoughtful, detailed close here. I believe this accurately reflects the consensus of the discussion and provides specific guidance that will be useful, hopefully to the editor who initiated the discussion, as well as to the many editors who encounter their work. Cheers, —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:07, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Consensus for status quo ante vs. no consensus

Hey SM. Thanks for your close at Scientology. You mention the functional similarity between closing with consensus for the status quo vs. finding no consensus and sticking with the status quo anyway. I think there's no real chance that anyone's going to push back on the status quo language at that article, so I'm not much bothered by your close and don't think it needs to be changed. That said, I do think you should consider deciding firmly between consensus and no consensus moving forward. We explicitly caution editors in WP:CCC that re-discussing freshly established consensus can be disruptive, which wouldn't apply in discussions that end in consensus. Outside of policy, I do see in practice that editors are more willing to restart discussions when they ended without consensus. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks for raising this question, because it's one I'm interested in. Personally I sometimes tend towards the principle that if you don't have to resolve a question, it's best not to, because that's the approach that least restricts the community's freedom to make different decisions when new sources emerge or new facts come to light, but I know that that principle is nowhere to be found in WP:DETCON. I have a number of talk page watchers who're interested in RFC outcomes, and I'd be intrigued to read counterarguments or alternative thoughts.—S Marshall T/C 16:35, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  Examples of other occasions where I've taken this approach are here and here, if that's helpful?—S Marshall T/C 17:17, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

December music

story · music · places

Organists: I went to see the church in Paris where Guy Morançon worked, quite a place, and wish Happy birthday to Gabriel Dessauer, - enjoy music he played, Dance Toccata, by another Paris organist. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

It was the first time that I was involved (a bit) in a pictured ITN blurb. More pics of buildings by him on my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:07, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I brought Wozzeck to the main page, not by me but I noticed the quality and the centenary. - There was no problem with his composer's infobox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Today's 1715 Advent Bach cantata translates to "Prepare the ways", - listen to quite stunning music if you haven't - that was a 2010 DYK ;) - "places" take you to Copenhagen". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:24, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Copying message

You recently closed an RfC. I'm adding it onto here, but the summary I added in that page seems inadequate. Do you mind if I copy and paste the reasoning you gave in the RfC closure onto the summary on there? Thank you! Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• I don't mind in the least, but I think it's more usual to link to the RfC close than to paste in the whole lot?—S Marshall T/C 21:57, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  The RfC is already linked on there. Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  Do you want me to add your name onto there or give you some credit in any other way? I'm not sure if it's allowed though. Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  Don't worry, I don't need you to do that.—S Marshall T/C 23:21, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Your plea at George Formby ibox close

Thanks for this close! You said "It would be enormously helpful to closers of these discussions if the community could come up with some properly thought out principles and practice notes about which articles should have infoboxes and what they should contain".

My user page has a compilation from 2018; the first in particular has been found useful by some:

• "ye olde infobox arguments (to save recomposing yet again):, , ",

Best, Johnbod (talk) 00:11, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

• Yes! If I'm in the !voting mode I'll usually say that articles about chemical elements, astronomical objects, Court cases, and species (for example) generally benefit from an infobox, while articles within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics (for example) shouldn't have one. Personally my favourite infobox on Wikipedia is the one for Hereward the Wake, which contains an image which is imaginative but depicts clearly anachronistic equipment; a name, which means "Army Guard the Watchful" and is certainly a cognomen; a date and place of birth which are speculative at best; a date of death which is reasonably plausible; some other cognomens that aren't well-attested and a "movement" which didn't formally exist and if it did he would never have been able to join. The whole infobox is basically complete bollocks.
  But what we need, unfortunately, is a guideline.—S Marshall T/C 00:29, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

  Until we'll have what is missing since 2013, our next best bet may be to ask in every given discussion, which I think worked for W. B. Yeats. Articles are different. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

  I used to believe a guideline was necessary and spent considerable time trying to develop one, but I no longer think it's needed. Only a few major biography articles remain without infoboxes. In the three or so years I've seen this topic discussed, I've never seen an RFC reach a consensus against adding an infobox. The outcomes are always either consensus to include one or no consensus at all.

  The issue also isn't being brought to RFC nearly as often anymore. There were some behavioral problems leading up to the Formby RFC, but the community seems willing to tolerate the current state of things, so it's probably best to let the sleeping dog lie. Nemov (talk) 13:48, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

  Right, but, the guideline needs to address more than "Should there be an infobox?" We also need some properly thought out guidance on populating disputed parameters. The parameters that have given me personally the most difficulty are:

  1) In biographies, when to populate the "religion" box? -- I think the answer is "When there's consensus that the person's religion is both well-sourced and relevant to the person's notability", but we need to document that.

  2) In military conflicts, who won? -- Is it whoever holds the disputed territory at the end of the conflict? Or do we need to think about factors like casualties and each side's military objectives at the time? (Plenty of Wikipedians seem to think it's "whoever holds the disputed territory", and one hopes they never come to command troops.)

  3) Back to biographies, when do we populate the "criminal_status" parameter? -- I think the answer is "if the person has been convicted by a competent court", but there are difficulties about appeals in cases like Lucy Letby.

  There are more examples, and they create a lot of conflict. It's been my personal experience that a lot (more than a third, less than half) of disputes on Wikipedia involve infoboxes.—S Marshall T/C 15:00, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

  I don't care much and may overlook cases, but saw only three RfCs regarding infoboxes in 2025, Formby, Yeats and Satie, and don't believe that there were only nine disputes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

  I think we might be slightly talking at cross purposes? When I talk about RfCs involving infoboxes I include RfCs involving infobox parameters, such as this, this, or this which although it looks incredibly similar is a different RfC. The problem is that infobox parameters want facts and figures or pithy, one- or two-word summaries, and therefore don't handle nuance well.—S Marshall T/C 22:42, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

  I missed those, working mostly in music and other art fields, only occasionally politics. Did you check out Satie? Once upon a time, 2010 I believe (but it began in 2008, before I even joined), an infobox for classical composers was created which has a subset of parameters wanted in most cases. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

  I'm interested in classical music, without knowing very much about it. I know the scales and the modes; I understand interval ratios and I can tell you the difference between just intonation and equal temperament; I know the basic principles of functional harmony; but for example, figured bass is a mystery to me. I wasn't familiar with Satie. What a sad life! Reading his article made me think about how it displays musical notation as .png files? (Really should replace those with .svg).

Why don't we use <score>?

I just had lots of fun working out how to do that!—S Marshall T/C 01:02, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

That's great! - Travelling, more later, have only time for watchlist. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

According to Template:Infobox person/doc, the "religion" parameter was removed after a 2016 RFC. It's only kept for religious figures (Template:Infobox religious biography), where their involvement in religion is by definition a notable part of their biography, and their religious affiliation should be easily sourced. -- Beland (talk) 00:58, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Good Lord. Turns out the RFC I had in mind was from 2015. I'm... so old... —S Marshall T/C 08:09, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Back: today's main page mentioned 4 composers of the classical era by name, did you notice? Cimarosa, Beethoven, Haydn and Mozart. I brought several items to the OTD section this year, also some composers: Mikis Theodorakis, John Rutter, Toshio Hosokawa, Luciano Berio, Clytus Gottwald, Helmut Lachenmann. Here's a nice song for the season, listen ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thank you for providing excellent guidance to editors at Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion. BD2412 T 23:33, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Seasons greetings!

 — Amakuru (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Happy New Year, S Marshall!

Happy New Year!

S Marshall,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
BhikhariInformer (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

BhikhariInformer (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

January music

story · music · places

300 years ago, a Bach cantata was born: happy new year! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

... inviting you to check out "my" story (fun listen today, full of surprises), music (and memory), and places (pictured by me: the latest uploads) any day! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Today you can watch the 2010 premiere of a violin sonata with the composer also the pianist. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Mozart music for today! - If you look at the pianist-composer in the center: his article mentions 30+ composers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

20 January is the 100th birthday of David Tudor (see my story) and the 300th birthday of Bach's cantata Meine Seufzer, meine Tränen, BWV 13, if we go by date instead of occasion as he would have thought, so see my story for last Sunday, and celebrate ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Your nice close on Trump

Hi S Marshall; With appreciation for doing that close on the Trump page. If you have enough strength for it then possibly you could also consider closing the Page Split discussion there which comes up on 30 days next week after this week-end. For full disclosure, I'm a participating editor there and cannot do the close myself; and also, that Page Split discussion is a bit fragmented since RedRose helped to convert it from its prior RfC format into the current Page Split discussion format. It needed to follow the correct reading of the limits of RfC rules. Possibly you could take a look since your close on the other RfC seems to be well-received by the editors on the Trump Talk page. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

• Thank you for being nice about that close. Mr Trump's article is fraught and toxic and it soaks up a completely disproportionate amount of volunteer time. Volunteer time is Wikipedia's limiting resource, so Mr Trump's article is very expensive, so to speak. I've closed at least four discussions about him over the last ten years, but I'm afraid I'm rather reluctant to do two in quick succession.—S Marshall T/C 21:59, 16 January 2026 (UTC)