User talk:BD2412

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Congratulations on hitting 2,500,000 edits! Best wishes. Red Director (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

@Red Director: Thanks! I knew I was around there. BD2412 T 01:53, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I would be happy to have some help with this submitted draft on Florida's new supreme court justice. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

@FloridaArmy: I will work this up further now that it is in mainspace. BD2412 T 23:49, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Edge of Twilight (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is:

• a disambiguation page with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" which lists only one extant Wikipedia page (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• a disambiguation page that lists zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• a redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" whose target is neither a disambiguation page nor page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:00, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:10, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

		The Articles for Creation Barnstar 2025 Top Editor
		In 2025 you were one of the top AfC editors, thank you! --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Much appreciated, thanks! BD2412 T 19:10, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi is it possible that you could delete the revisions on my user page that are older than this revision? I ask because they used to be deleted, but they re-appeared after you undeleted my user page after I requested it at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. I don't mean to criticise you or anyone else as I forgot to ask to keep them deleted, but yeah. There's no personal information so no oversight is needed but I would be grateful if you or someone else could delete it. Thanks. ―Panamitsu (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

@Panamitsu:  Done, cheers! BD2412 T 23:49, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you!! ―Panamitsu (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I am going to watch this guy a bit longer. I smell dirty socks. His very first edit was a comment at another user's talk page requesting unbanning of that user. That in itself sets off the alarms. The fact that he is trying rapidly pad his edit count by adding judges one at a time instead of all at once has also aroused my suspicion. I will wait a day or two, then will go to the administrator noticeboard. Just giving you a heads up. Safiel (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

@Safiel: That is a sound assessment. BD2412 T 23:31, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List&diff=prev&oldid=1335042993

I find it puzzling, to be honest.

Linking the word "set" to the mathematics concept is obviously wrong.

"Lists are "most frequently a tool", and "one does not read but only uses a list: one looks up the relevant information in it, but usually does not need to deal with it as a whole"" -> This is poetic and doesn't belong in the lead, it's very unclear and hard to understand as well.

"It has been observed that, with a few exceptions, "the scholarship on lists remains fragmented". David Wallechinsky, a co-author of The Book of Lists, described the attraction of lists as being "because we live in an era of overstimulation, especially in terms of information, and lists help us in organizing what is otherwise overwhelming"" -> This doesn't respect NPOV at all with the current way it's worded. Aim551551551 (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

A list is absolutely a mathematical set. It is the set of the number of things on the list. As for the quotes, the NPOV concern would be in deviating from quotations to push a point of view. The quotes say what they say. See WP:BRD; if you change longstanding text, and your change is reverted, your next step is to initiate a discussion and seek consensus for your position. BD2412 T 01:58, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm willing to concede the other two.

"Lists are "most frequently a tool", and "one does not read but only uses a list: one looks up the relevant information in it, but usually does not need to deal with it as a whole"."

This is a poetic, sloppily written, and confusing lead. Would it be a good idea to clarify this part? If so, how? Aim551551551 (talk) 02:08, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I do think that it is important that lists are predominately a tool (one can write a list purely for entertainment, but a checklist or shopping list or a directory is functional, and as much a tool as a set of instructions is). I would not object to moving the second portion of the quote from the lede to the body, but it expresses a point that should be in the article somewhere. BD2412 T 02:47, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I have made some of these changes. BD2412 T 02:55, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Perfect, we are all good and set for these articles. Thanks! Aim551551551 (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Cheers! BD2412 T 03:20, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Is this on purpose? it seems kind of like weird ai nonsense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heinz_Nigg&curid=56466164&diff=1335222158&oldid=1316618183 Mandlerex (talk) 02:31, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

@Mandlerex:, yes, fixing typos in punctuation is on purpose. They are an eyesore and detract from the appearance of professionalism in the encyclopedia as a whole. Also, it has to be done manually, as there are too many exceptions for an automated process to catch (scientific and mathematical formulae, names of image files, quoted social media posts, etc.). As for the em-dash specifically, that is added by AWB as one of its background automatic fixes. BD2412 T 02:35, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

interesting. What I thought was an em-dash, is actually an en-dash, and I thought it should have been a hyphen, but I guess you learn something new everyday. Mandlerex (talk) 03:41, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I generally only quibble over en-dashes in date ranges. BD2412 T 03:51, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 January 28 § Draft articles on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mclay1 (talk) 09:15, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I see this is just a renaming request. I have no preference. Cheers! BD2412 T 13:44, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi BD,

Can you handle the institution of an WP:ANI complaint (about serious personal attacks). Where the reported user is bizarrely edit warring to remove it (, , ). (We are likely on bannable grounds already.)

Thanks Gotitbro (talk) 08:00, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

@Gotitbro:, per Wikipedia:Solicited administrator actions, referenced at the top of this page, I prefer not to undertake solicited actions to avoid the appearance of bias in favor of editors making such requests. I note that the edit-warring editor has already been indef-blocked. BD2412 T 14:09, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I missed that. Was notifying the last active sysop at the board of basic procedural vios encountered while filing a report. Thanks for updating me on the status of the report.

Cheers Gotitbro (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Hold on. That nom actually went through? The Page Curation tool indicated that nothing happened. I understand it's been broken for a while. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 16:09, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

That, I have no knowledge of. I have not had problems creating RfD's, though. BD2412 T 20:32, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

		The Law Barnstar
		For your work on William Allen (Massachusetts judge). Bearian (talk) 04:23, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

@Bearian: Many thanks! If filling out articles on state supreme court justices is of interest to you, we about 750 more waiting in the wings at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/United States judges and justices. Cheers! BD2412 T 13:39, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello,
I am far from being an expert of en.wiki, but—to avoid any edit war or heated discussion with the user who reverted my edits—I would like to ask for an external opinion. Precisely, I am asking if the following edits (reverts) in this article might be considered "vandalism". The sources I quoted were about the topic, or at least I supposed they were:

• in the first case it is a still accepted scale of "normal distribution" of world human males statures, by authoritative anthropologists under the direction of the main Author quoted in the tmp (whilst the user who reverted the edit wrote that "120 cm is not comparable to 190 cm": the subject of this revert is not related at all to what is stated in the source and reported in the article, but just a personal comment/opinion without any source);
• in the second one, it is a recent study by some scientists anthropologists concerning the human distribution of average statures in the world, so I am not able to understand the subject of the revert: "Interesting but off-topic".

(On it.wiki, with the help of the Community and my own work, the article "Statura" (Stature/Height) is "featured") Thank you --Walther16 (talk) 08:34, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Addenda The reason I did not write to the user PenultimateStride is also linked to the fact he put in is user page the "RETIRED" banner, precisely in his talk. As far as I know, it is strictly forbidden to edit whilst formally retired. <EDIT>: My fault, too, because the tmp "RETIRED" remained by mistake in my user page talk (despite eliminated from the main page)—now it has been deleted </EDIT> --Walther16 (talk) 09:20, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I am willing to argue with you on the talk. PenultimateStride (talk) 09:25, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

@Walther16 and PenultimateStride: As noted at the top of this page, I subscribe to Wikipedia:Solicited administrator actions, and will not respond to such a request to avoid the appearance that my involvement is being sought with the expectation of favoring the requesting side. That being said, I don't see how the referenced edits could possibly be considered "vandalism". BD2412 T 13:22, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

At least on it.wiki, deleting entire sections with sources without a previous discussion is considered vandalism (point 2 of WP:VANDALISMO, «cancellazione non giustificata di parti del testo»). However, I am not an expert at all of the policy on en.wiki, where it seems—according to the words "Vandalism includes any addition, removal, or modification that is intentionally humorous, nonsensical, a hoax, offensive, libelous or degrading in any way"—that "vandalism" has a different meaning. A discussion was opened in the talk of the article by the user—I answered. I will not edit the article anymore --Walther16 (talk) 14:38, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Showing up (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is:

• a disambiguation page with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" which lists only one extant Wikipedia page (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• a disambiguation page that lists zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• a redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" whose target is neither a disambiguation page nor page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. enbi [they/them] • [talk] 19:05, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@Enbi: Resolved by retargeting to the disambiguation page Show up. BD2412 T 19:27, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Is the state legislator in Maine the same person as the state senator and wealtyh businessman of Ossipee, New Hampshire? FloridaArmy (talk) 02:05, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I'll have a look. BD2412 T 02:07, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Comma isn't necessary after all spaces.

I'm not sure that I understand the gist of this, but yes, in regular running text in the English language, it is absolutely grammatically necessary to follow a comma with a space. I gather here you are talking about the URL, however. BD2412 T 16:58, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

at line 603:

* {{cite web |title=Springfield Armory National Historic Site |url=http://www.museum.nps.gov/spar/vfpcgi.exe?IDCFile=/spar/DETAILM.IDC, SPECIFIC=9341, DATABASE=29426021, |work=NPS.gov |publisher=National Park Service (US Govt) |access-date=13 September 2010}}

producing:
* SPECIFIC=9341, DATABASE=29426021, "Springfield Armory National Historic Site". NPS.gov. National Park Service (US Govt). Retrieved 13 September 2010. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
Detect these spaces after comma in |url= field. BTW, that quote at very first was just a keyboard output produced in hurry, it has nothing to do with grammar.––KEmel49(📝,📋) 17:08, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I understand now. Usually I get an automated notice when a URL is broken in an edit, but now I see that such notices are only provided when the URL is in a footnote. BD2412 T 17:27, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey, BD2412. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 09:12, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Twenty-one years, indeed. BD2412 T 20:09, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey BD2412, I’m an independent researcher conducting qualitative research for Wikimedia about the motivations and behaviors of top Wikipedia contributors. The interview would be about an hour or so and we would be happy to provide compensation for your time. Let me know if you’re interested and I'll provide more details. Thanks! Jonah Ginsburg (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

@Jonah Ginsburg: I replied affirmatively to your email on the matter. BD2412 T 23:44, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey - Wanted to reach out earlier but wasn't sure if you'd be interested given all the other work you do. I nominated Society for Crypto-Judaic Studies to GA and I'm confident it could make it through. I will work on the article for a few more weeks while it sits for a year before it gets reviewed. I took a big stab at it over a year ago and then worked on it just recently again before nominating. If you have any thoughts or feedback feel free to let me know! Morogris (✉ • ✎) 02:08, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

@Morogris: It is something I am likely to poke my head into in the coming days. BD2412 T 02:17, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, BD2412,

Could you check out this page? It looks like you created a redirect to itself. I'm not sure what other target page might be appropriate. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

@Liz: I don't know why but the page swap feature seems to be doing that. BD2412 T 23:48, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

In your Contribution section, you say that "As of January 1, 2018, I have edited about 14.25% of the articles on Wikipedia; if you have edited more than seven articles, there is probably an article that both you and I have edited."

Neglecting the age of that statement and the complexities of which articles are more likely to be edited by a novice versus one of the most productive editors of all time, I wanted to note that this statement is actually overstating the number of different articles someone else would have edited for it to be more likely than not that both you and your reader had edited some same article. 1-(1-0.1425)^4 is roughly 0.459, but 1-(1-0.1425)^5 is roughly 0.536. As such, you could very reasonably improve that statement to as few as "more than four articles"! I wish I were able to find the relevant proportion of articles edited by you now in order to figure out what the appropriate number would be now. LieutenantZipp (talk) 05:32, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the math! The number has definitely changed in the intervening years. How much, I can't imagine. BD2412 T 15:44, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Redirects you have created have 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/2026 March 1 § Iran-Israel-United States war until a consensus is reached. Abesca (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I have no recollection of creating this redirect, but I can see that modern events have made a mess of the redirect situation with respect to this topic. BD2412 T 03:03, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi there, I hope you are doing well. I was wondering if you are experienced enough to do a history merge. The reason why I am asking is because on this discussion page, we want to merge the level 5 vital article subpages named History and geography and History into one page while preserving the archives and page history. Links to pages in question: Old page Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/History_and_geography and new page Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/History. If you don't know how to do this, that's fine. I can ask someone else to do it, but if you can do it, I would appreciate it. Best regards, Interstellarity (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

@Interstellarity: I have commented in the discussion. I will be watching it. Cheers! BD2412 T 23:58, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

It's me again. How much do you know about writing broad-concept articles? I've seen ones you've created before, such as Survival, and would like to get some tips. 1isall (talk | contribs) 21:17, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

@1isall: I know some things. What do you have in mind? BD2412 T 23:52, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Anything! Absolutely anything!

I'd like to mention that one particular BCA that I believe enwiki needs is Migration. 1isall (talk | contribs) 23:57, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

That one I don't know, since the term is used for migration of chemicals in a medium as well as of people and animals over territory. It might need something too broad. BD2412 T 02:31, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Maybe we need to reach out to someone who is a master of writing about the broadest concepts possible. 1isall (talk | contribs) 02:36, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh, that's still me, then. I wrote Size, and Comparison, and Damage, and Acceptability, and Effectiveness. BD2412 T 02:59, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Neat. The thing is, among those five, migration, and survival, which is the broadest? 1isall (talk | contribs) 03:13, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I would have to think about it. BD2412 T 03:19, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I do plan to try and start Draft:Migration sooner or later, and if it is finished, the disambiguation page will be moved to Migration (disambiguation)Migration (disambiguation), which we would need to start an RM for because it's been proposed for move in the past. The only unrelated topics at the DAB are listed at Migration § Arts and media. 1isall (talk | contribs) 03:33, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

That is always the best way to start. At any given time, I have a dozen or so BCA drafts in various stages of disarray. I find it particularly useful to search Google Books for the earliest instances of use of the term for its various meanings, to see where new ones branched off. BD2412 T 03:57, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Or, I could copy and adapt some content from all the related articles (with attribution, of course). 1isall (talk | contribs) 13:08, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that is also a good method, although I always at least try to find some source not currently reflected within Wikipedia that ties the concepts together as a broad concept. It sounds like you have a good sense of how to proceed. BD2412 T 19:04, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi BD2412! Just wanted to reach out as I've reverted a few of your script-assisted edits recently. Not sure if you're aware, but a handful of your edits have broken file names by altering them, usually to change the type of quotation marks and apostrophes. Just wanted to give a friendly reminder that if you could quick double-check your script-assisted edits in the future so they aren't unintentionally breaking images, that would be great! Thanks so much for all you do on Wikipedia! Kind regards, Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 18:40, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@KatnissEverdeen: It would be ideal if I could get an automated notice of such instances, as I do when a CS1 error occurs in a citation template. BD2412 T 19:05, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi BD2412, I don't believe any feature like that exists, unfortunately. If it's helpful, one tool I use as a patroller of CAT:MISSFILE is adding code to my CSS page which highlights and bolds any red-linked images. It would allow for any images broken by the script-assisted edits to easily stand out upon a quick scroll-through of the page after making your edit. Cheers, Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 21:42, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi BD2412. I asked the community to restore Care.com to mainspace at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2026 March 8#Draft:Care.com and Care.com. Cunard (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Yesterday on the article yiff I noticed one of the images, according to a talk page contributor and independent research, depicted an underage character in a sexual manner. I removed the image from the article, but I don't know how to get the image permanently off the site or what to do about the user who added it in the first place. I tried to say something at the teahouse but was ignored. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 20:19, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

@Phlogiston Enthusiast: That is certainly an image made in poor taste and of questionable utility. The place to go to nominate images for deletion is Wikipedia:Files for discussion. The procedures are explained well on the page. I will certainly support a deletion nomination for this image on the grounds of being unencyclopedic. BD2412 T 20:27, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I nominated and it isn't showing up. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 20:35, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't see that you edited Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2026 March 17. That's where you would add the nomination. BD2412 T 20:41, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I used twinkle. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 20:41, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

The image is on commons, not locally enwiki. Discussion at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:MLP clop fanart of a pony version of Wikipedia.png is properly started and transcluded on c:Commons:Deletion requests/2026/03/17. DMacks (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, DMacks. I have participated in the discussion there. Cheers! BD2412 T 20:45, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, BD2412! I'd like to direct your attention to a particular matter. I have assumed good faith and have, in good faith, listened to advice received, but I have now come to a genuine impasse due to an editor's POV-pushing. More about it here .

That editor acts like they *own* the article and are now demanding a level of details that is impossible to provide, thus preventing me from doing my job as an editor on Wikipedia, and I've been here for twenty years. They have repeatedly proven that they will edit-war, even break the three-revert rule, in order to "guard their territory."

I took the time to do even more research and build a stronger case for the addition of "songwriter" in the lede and infobox of the Rihanna article. I provided multiple documentation that delves into Rihanna's songwriting process beyond high quality sources calling her a songwriter or mentioning her songwriting credits.

(They finally agreed to a brief mention of Rihanna's regular co-writing contributions in the early part of the "Artistry" section, but this is not sufficient.) Israell (talk) 09:43, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

In regard to lyrics, such editors want me to prove that she didn't just change or add one word or one line, arguing that one could get a credit just for that; they want me to prove that she truly wrote a significant amount of the lyrics in all those songs... In regard to music composition, they want me to highlight exactly what she composed; they want me to state exactly how she composed the music...

This is not how collaborative songwriting is documented! There are no high-quality sources that break down, line-by-line, exactly what any artist personally wrote in specific songs... That level of attribution is not how pop songwriting is publicly documented. Sure, there may occasionally be an interview or documentary that specifies exactly what was authored or composed by whom and how, but that's rare.

Credits are official, published facts—legal and industry-recognized—especially when it comes to a major international artist like Rihanna. Such credits already passed publishers, labels, and performing rights organizations. They are therefore valid, citable facts.

Problem is, such editors have strong disbelief in songwriting credits. Sure, there may be cases where a recording artist obtains a credit for a song they barely wrote or did not write at all, but such doubt cannot be applied here.

1. We cannot, as editors, guess that the artist may only have changed one word, a few notes, or not written anything at all! That's original research, and it's not allowed on Wikipedia (WP:NOR).

2. Online chatter that the artist "steals" songwriting credits is pure speculation, hearsay. That's not proper on here, and we must maintain a neutral viewpoint (WP:NPOV).

3. Such dismissal of songwriting credits goes against WP:V. Such credits, as I've just mentioned, are verifiable facts.

I can reliably state that Rihanna is a credited songwriter and participated in the collaborative songwriting process. That’s it! Anything more specific requires sources that don’t exist publicly. Israell (talk) 09:56, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have an RfC to this effect, generally. BD2412 T 12:55, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

An RfC about the Rihanna article only? Maybe, but I hope for this matter to be resolved per Wiki policy on the Rihanna talk page (months of discussion already). An editor will not stop reverting, so an admin needs to step in. There could be an RfC about all music articles in general in order to avoid the endless time-wasting "songwriter/not a songwriter" debates... We went through the same thing on the Beyoncé and Madonna articles years ago.

Feel free to weigh in on the talk page. A lot of arguments were made, and mine are back by Wiki policy. Israell (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

One more thing... The problem is the apparent lack of good faith of certain editors—and I do assume good faith. I take the time to explain certain things such as: "I've already established that being a sole songwriter is not a requirement to be known as songwriter."; "Speculation on the extent of Rihanna's actual contribution is original research, and that's not allowed when editing articles."; etc.

Instead of sincerely considering my points, they defiantly ignore them and ask me the exact same questions they asked me before, insisting I give them extensive information that is not even publicly available... And they repeat themselves over and over again, forcing speculation, hearsay and original research here on Wikipedia. That's not proper at all! Israell (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I mean an RFC about the set of circumstances that are sufficient to make it appropriate to refer to a performer as a "songwriter", along the lines of what you have outlined above. BD2412 T 17:16, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Would you be willing to start the RfC?

I honestly feel such a step would be a colossal waste of time considering all the documentation I already provided. I wish a couple of admins would just weigh in and readd the "songwriter" occupation.

See: According to him, we should edit based on assumptions or hearsay that Rihanna only changes one word... I've already verified (with multiple reliable sources) that she immersed herself in her lyrical craft, that skilled songwriters helped her hone her own skills (which implies a lot more than minor contributions), pour her emotions in her craft, that Makeba Riddick helped her write the bridge of "Rude Boy" (which is specific), that her peers in the industry affirmed her habitual songwriting, and that she also composes music (the Academy Awards recognizes that)...

But he insists that I should state exactly what Rihanna composed (generally, no high quality source goes into such details—that's not how collaborative songwriting is documented) or he considers that invalid, which goes against WP:V (the information provided is sufficient). Having sole songwriting credits is not a requirement; having over 130 credits, incl. credits on her most releases, shows that songwriting has gradually become a primary occupation for her (alongside that of singer); and once again, assumptions or hearsay that she only changes one word go against WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Israell (talk) 04:14, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

In the aforementioned matter on Rihanna's occupation, I've filed for arbitration: . Israell (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

"Perhaps we should have an RfC to this effect, generally." BD2412, would you be willing to compose and start the RfC? If so, you may go ahead. It's for the addition of the songwriter occupation in both the lede and infobox of the Rihanna article (so "songwriter" comes second, just after the "singer" occupation). Israell (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I'll support appropriate language, but I am not particularly interested in drafting an RfC. I would prefer one not focused on a single artist. BD2412 T 20:52, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

"one not focused on a single artist" An RfC about pop singers in general, about whether or not they should be referred to as songwriters (lede and infobox) if several major publications or organizations recognize them as such? Would that impact Rihanna's article? Israell (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

If we establish a rule for whether singers should be referred to as songwriters, then Rihanna's article would be covered by that rule. I recall that we had the same issue arise with Beyonce. BD2412 T 22:33, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

That would be an absurd rule to make. Some singers are also songwriters. Some aren't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: How can an unarticulated proposition to have a rule be "an absurd rule to make"? I'm not suggesting that we have a rule saying that all singers are songwriters, but that we establish a rule to explain what is sufficient to call a singer a songwriter. BD2412 T 00:17, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

How about no? We don't have rules about every last possible item of content - instead, we have general policies and guidelines (e.g. WP:DUE), and rely on editorial judgement and if necessary dispute resolution to make decisions based on the specific circumstances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:08, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

We seem to have had multiple arguments over whether multiple article subjects are "songwriters"; it would be odd if these came out in inconsistent ways, and wasteful to repeat the same points over and over when they could be centralized in a single guideline. BD2412 T 01:15, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Good luck coming out with a 'simple guideline' that will put an end to the arguments... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree with BD2412. The same issue arose with Beyoncé; and with Madonna also. It is very time-consuming, energy-draining—every time over one single word: songwriter. Israell (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

We just need to establish a threshold for the songwriter occupation, like minimum 40 songwriting credits or something (as seen with Olivia Rodrigo or Reneé Rapp ). Having sole songwriting credits is not a requirement (as seen w/ Billie Eilish), and playing instruments is not a requirement (as seen with Jim Morrison). But then again, a new artist like Alex Warren with fewer than 40 credits may already be considered a songwriter.

There is no logical reason why Rihanna , w/ over 130 songwriting credits (excl. duplicates), having won a songwriting award , received an Academy Awards nomination , plus all the other documentation I provided (incl. this) still can't be considered a songwriter on Wiki. Israell (talk) 19:22, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps something like:

When determining whether a performing artist should also be described as a songwriter, editors should rely on how the subject is characterized in reliable sources, and on documented songwriting credits, rather than making independent judgments about the extent or quality of the subject's songwriting contributions. If reliable sources describe an artist as a songwriter or singer-songwriter, or if the artist is credited as a writer or co-writer on songs in reliable, verifiable credits, it is generally appropriate to refer to the person as a songwriter in the article. The subject may be described as such in the lede where due weight supports it. Editors should not remove or avoid "songwriter" as a description based on personal views that credits were honorary, minimal, or otherwise undeserved. Such determinations constitute original research. Where reliable sources discuss disputes or criticism regarding songwriting credits, those viewpoints may be summarized in the article with proper attribution. Wikipedia's role is to reflect what is reported in reliable sources, not to independently evaluate the legitimacy of songwriting claims.

BD2412 T 19:59, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Policies which attempt to replace editorial discretion with assume-bad-faith assumptions about what arguments may or may not be presented are seldom a good idea. More so when they attempt to misapply existing policy, i.e. WP:OR which does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources. As for credits (i.e. primary sources) being sufficient to establish that an individual wrote something, you should probably read up on the contract that John Lennon and Paul McCartney signed up to - it specified that both were to be credited for any work, regardless of whether it was a cooperative effort, or written by one only. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

It is beyond doubt that John Lennon and Paul McCartney were both songwriters, and that their contract headed off disputes over who wrote which song. Do you have an example of a non-songwriting having a contract requiring that they be credited as a songwriter? BD2412 T 20:30, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Personally, I see 'being credited as a songwriter' of only very limited relevance to the question as to whether someone should be described as such in an infobox. If independent sources discuss their songwriting in any depth, so should the article in summary, and generally this would be adequate justification for inclusion in an infobox. Wikipedia is supposed to summarise independent secondary sources, not count primary ones. The first part of your proposal - "how the subject is characterized in reliable sources" - is all that is needed, and we already have policy on that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:40, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

And regarding songwriting credits for a performer who didn't write a song, see footnote (d) in the Elvis Prestley article - this seems to bew common knowledge. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

This is one of the arguments that I've already stated on the talk page of the Rihanna article. Just because some recording artists or producers or executives may (allegedly or factually) have stolen or bought songwriting credits, it doesn't mean that so or so recording artist is most likely doing the same thing. That's pure speculation, hearsay, and it's got no place here on Wikipedia.

During the debate pertaining to the Beyoncé article, certain editors pushed back saying that all she did was steal credits, change one word, etc. All of that goes against WP:NOR and WP:NPOV.

Whether certain artists got credits for songs they did not truly write is irrelevant unless reliable sources explicitly make a case for it. Israell (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: In this Rihanna matter, the talk page discussion is no longer productive. Despite extensive documentation, I'm now asked to produce information that is not publicly available (for instance, "proof" she didn't only write one word or line; what part of the music she composed exactly), which is not reasonable. Even if an RfC solves the matter, the issue is likely to happen again in the future; BD2412 and I agree that it is a waste of time arguing over that same profession: songwriter.

It is not assuming bad faith when certain editors make their personal assumptions and biases clear. This edit summary for instance: "disrespectful to the people actually writing her songs"

Once again, I totally support BD2412's text.

Israell (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Whether you support BD2412's text here or not isn't going to change anything, regardless of how many times you say so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not following you... If BD2412 goes ahead with the proposed RfC, things may change accordingly. Israell (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

If BD2412 goes ahead with an RfC, I will comment there. At which point our opinions will hopefully be taken into consideration. Meanwhile, repeating your agreement here is achieving nothing. I'm trying to explain my take on the matter, and being interrupted with 'I agree with the other guy' comments does nothing to facilitate a productive discussion. And you should probably take note that the community tends to be a little sceptical of attempts to revise policy originating from an individual heavily involved in a specific dispute over the matter. If there is an RfC on the general topic, you'd probably do best to avoid characterisations of 'bad faith' etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not "interrupting" anything, and I've responded to some of the points you've made in this conversation. Israell (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

One more thing, I do not see any "assume-bad-faith assumptions" in the RfC proposal above. To me, it reads like a simple reminder of Wikipedia's policies.

It'll be up to readers to comment and vote for or against it. Israell (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Regarding any RfC, I'd assume that WP:RFCBEFORE will apply, since there seems to have been no general discussion on the policy, or at least, none that I'm aware of. Rather than diving straight into an RfC, the community needs the opportunity to discuss the matter first - I'd suggest WP:VPP as the appropriate venue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:37, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

The proposed RfC is not intrinsically different from the previous RfCs pertaining to the songwriter occupation on performers articles. I am not getting the sense that this RfC is vying to change existing policies but rather clarify them.

Besides, avenues outlined in WP:RFCBEFORE have already been explored; instead of making it solely about Rihanna, it'll be about music performers articles in general.

I support starting the RfC right away. Community members will be able to weigh in anyway when the RfC is enacted. WP:RFCBEFORE mentions editors' time being valuable... Exactly! This would save us all a great deal of time and settle this matter once and for all. Israell (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd assume that a contributor with BD2412's experience would understand the point I was making - that if the community in general is to make a decision regarding amending a policy, it needs to be discussed appropriately by the community before starting an RfC. To do that, a discussion needs to b appropriately placed, and notified accordingly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

On the other hand, I can just create Wikipedia:Songwriting credit as an essay right now, no discussion needed. BD2412 T 18:04, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I support your wording, BD2412. This would make for a clear, concise and compelling RfC statement. I'm all for it! Please just let me know when you start it. Israell (talk) 20:25, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree with this statement, and support the motion to apply this change in regards to fellow musician pages Never17 (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Such a determination cannot be made on a user talk page. A discussion needs to be initiated in a more appropriate space. BD2412 T 16:55, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Adyghe people 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/Adyghe people 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.

Boynamedsue (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue: I did not create this article. Please find the actual article creator and notify them. BD2412 T 19:56, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Not sure what happened there, on New Pages Patrol we have a gadget that does it automatically, doesn't appear to be working. Apologies.Boynamedsue (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Haha, you did actually, you moved it from somewhere else on the 24th of February 2012! Not surprised you don't remember though. I have separately notified the person who created the new article anyway.Boynamedsue (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue: The article now at Circassians, which I moved from Adyghe people, was created by User:ChrisO~enwiki (since renamed to User:Prioryman). BD2412 T 16:29, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Pallasopaddy (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

heelo @BD2412 I am proposing a topic about Martin Luther Nyanzi for inclusion in Wikipedia. Pallasopaddy (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of this subject and insufficient bandwidth to take it up at this time. Please feel free to start a draft, however. BD2412 T 16:31, 25 March 2026 (UTC)