User talk:Iseult

Women in Red | March 2026, Vol 12, Issue 3, Nos 358, 359, 364, 365, 366 Online events: March 1-31: Artists & Activists | Artworks by women | Alphabet run: countries starting with C Continuing (year-long initiatives): #1day1woman | Sports Announcements from other communities: Celebrate Women Unreferenced articles backlog drive Wiki Loves Ramadan Tip of the month: Those experiencing difficulties with new articles can follow the guidance in our essays, perhaps starting with our Ten Simple Rules. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 09:28, 25 February 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging

The first round of the 2026 WikiCup ended on 26 February. As some of you may have noticed, good article nomination reviews now receive 10 points, an increase from 5 points in the previous year, as per a consensus at WT:CUP. This point increase has been retroactively applied to all good article reviews for which competitors have claimed points in this round. Peer reviews, which continue to be worth 5 points, are now listed in the same section as featured article candidate reviews, rather than with good article reviews. Everyone who competed in round 1 will advance to round 2 unless they have withdrawn or been banned. No other changes to the round-point system have been made for this year.

Round 1 was competitive. Three contestants scored more than 1,000 round points, and the top 16 contestants all scored more than 300 round points. The following competitors scored more than 800 round points:

• Bgsu98 (submissions) with 1,467 round points, largely gained from 1 featured article, 5 featured lists, 15 good articles, and 42 FAC and GAN reviews;
• Olliefant (submissions) with 1,246 round points, largely from 4 featured lists, 9 good articles, 2 featured topic articles, 4 did you know articles, and 75 FAC and GAN reviews;
• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,095 round points, largely from 3 featured articles, 6 good articles, and 5 did you know articles;
• MCE89 (submissions) with 848 round points, largely from 1 featured article, 8 good articles, 1 did you know article, and 32 FAC and GAN reviews; and
• Rollinginhisgrave (submissions) with 838 round points, largely from 1 featured article, 8 good articles, 1 did you know article, and 14 FAC, GAN, and peer reviews.

The full scores for round 1 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 7 featured articles, 16 featured lists, 2 featured-topic articles, 168 good articles, 13 good-topic articles and more than 50 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 14 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 700 reviews. The tournament points table will be updated within the next few days.

Remember that any content promoted after 26 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, regarding the subject close, you state: The underlying guidelines, in any case, leave room for interpretation [emphasis added]. Could you please be more specific as to which guidelines and how these are reasonably open to interpretation when taken in concert are permissive of the type of collage proposed? Cinderella157 (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Cinderella157, I'll reply here before updating my close so that we can keep our conversation localized. The PAGs immediately relevant are WP:COLLAGE, MOS:LEADIMAGE, and MOS:IMAGEREL; other PAGs raised in the argument don't apply very well to the question of whether a collage is appropriate.

WP:COLLAGE states that if a gallery would serve as well as a collage or montage, the gallery should be preferred, as galleries are easier to maintain and adjust better to user preferences; however, the discussion did not consider a gallery at all. Also, as far as I know, galleries cannot be put in infoboxes.

WP:LEADIMAGE states that lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic. As the discussion did not center around the content of the image, rather the nature, I can't rule on the consensus for naturalness and appropriateness. That, in any case, would come down essentially to a preponderance of personal taste; there is room for interpretation.

MOS:IMAGEREL:

Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. Each image in an article should have a clear and unique illustrative purpose and serve as an important illustrative aid to understanding the subject. When possible, find better images and improve captions rather than simply removing poor or inappropriate ones, especially on pages with few visuals. However, not every article needs images, and too many can be distracting or cause undue weight: usually, less is more.

I have bolded phrases which are open to interpretation. We don't have a bright-line rule for these and must instead go by what the community thinks or an elephant test. Accordingly, I can't set aside or down-weigh !votes for a collage based simply off of this PAG; it's not as if the !voters were arguing for the inclusion of, say, SpongeBob in the infobox.

I hope this answers your question. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 17:30, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Nobody has referred to the passage from WP:COLLAGE you cite and nobody has suggested the use of a gallery in the infobox. Nobody has cited that part of WP:LEADIMAGE you quote. In the passage from MOS:IMAGEREL quoted, reference has only been made to not primarily decorative. The following comment was made in discussion: The three guidelines you cite in your first three points are very up to interpretation, as many who have read the same guidelines on just this talk page interpret them otherwise (thinking back to the long discussions with QuisEstJoe above, among other examples). This is a reference to this comment stating: Notice how it says that it is "common" (nowhere saying "always" or "mandatory"), meaning that we don't have to represent the Syrian Civil War in such a way. This was in reference to that part of LEADIMAGE that states: It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image—such as of a person or place, a book or album cover—to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page. The counterpoint made is that P&G rarely uses mandatory language. They nonetheless represent standards all users should normally follow. The part of LEADIMAGE being refered to is not part of that you have quoted. Where the editor has said among other examples, such examples do not appear evident (ie the statement is unsubstantiated). I agree that there is editor discretion in selecting the lead image within the prevailing P&G. What I am not seeing is lack of clarity or ambiguity within or between the prevailing P&G that would lead to the question of the suitability of a collage being open to interpretation. Your quoting of passages not raised in the discussion to support such a conclusion (leave room for interpretation) leads to concerns. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:30, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Cinderella157, thanks for your reply! I'll take it in chunks.

Nobody has referred to the passage from WP:COLLAGE you cite...[and] the use of a gallery. Indeed. That's why I did not take that into consideration, saying the discussion did not consider a gallery at all. I was giving PAGs that would best apply to the situation and my interpretation of those. Some, as I have stated above, don't apply. If I'd known that my obiter dictum would draw such concern, I would not have included it. I can't reasonably overrule a a 15-1 !vote in favor of the collage, not without immediately getting challenged and overturned.

P&G rarely uses mandatory language: hence my obiter. There is latitude given in PAGs that allow for the use of a collage. Even if there weren't, the 15-1 consensus is so overwhelming that I posit that WP:IAR would apply. Yes, not a vote, but it's 15-1.

Your quoting of passages not raised in the discussion: we are all obligated to uphold PAGs, even if not directly quoted. WP:TALKDONTREVERT states consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. WP:DETCON says that consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. This isn't just policy that was brought up in the discussion; it's all policy. The first example given at WP:DISCARD is of an argument that contradicts policy; that argument is to be set aside.

But my quotes are incidental to the finding of consensus. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 03:05, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your engagement. You will be aware, the closer is not to be a judge of the issue, but rather of the argument. The closure should be a fair summary of arguments made and how these were weighed to distill a conclusion on consensus (see WP:ACD). From our engagement here, the statement, The underlying guidelines, in any case, leave room for interpretation, does not appear to be a a fair summary of arguments made and gives the impression that the closer has interposed themself into the debate to judge the issue. It is appropriate for a judge of the issue to make an obiter dictum but not a judge of the debate. I refer to your response immediately above before amendment . I agree that in hindsight it was probably an error to make such a comment - an error that can still be corrected. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your link to the essay. WP:DETCON, however, is policy, and I did not and do not believe an in-depth summary necessary for this particular close. I do think that my obiter is appropriate though unfortunate in receiving blowback. It explains why there is no compelling reason to be extra-WP:BOLD and set aside the 15 !votes, as they are all within PAGs. I am willing to append a restatement of my penultimate sentence to my close. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 08:19, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey, you would have closed the move in favour of moving to Pīpipi, right? Given ongoing discussion and comments by you about how to close it, I don’t think JoBoGamer should have closed it, but bureaucratically reopening it just to have someone else close it would be silly. If we are on the same page, would you just endorse the close but note it as a bartender close? — HTGS (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

 HTGS: Yes. My raw notes from last night are as follows:

pipipi: 4

brown creeper: 4 -1

sciname: 5 -2

oppose: 2

And I’d give it to Pīpipi on the basis of no explicit opposition with support just about equal. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 20:49, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi! You seem to be experienced with closing requested moves. Have you considered applying for page mover rights? 1isall (talk | contribs) 02:02, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

1isall, I will now. I see that page moving policy is a little forbidding, but that's what specifications are for. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 05:41, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Iseult. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Elli (talk | contribs) 18:22, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

The data provided by the nominator was misleading as I pointed out (and another editor agreed) the data was not useful, as I mentioned most sources use simply 'declaration of independence' when referring to this and when looking at the ngrams data for the Maori name most of the sources end up being in Maori or using both names. The rest of the data is purely cherry-picked with many of the sources again using both names. The evidence provided by the nominator was flawed and was shown to be flawed. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Traumnovelle, I read those comments and also explored the links shared. I was unable to see what you shared but believed you as per my statement. Given my finding that HTGS's rebuttal might very well be stronger than they found, I don't think there's any reason at this time to set aside the supermajority of !votes, though I'm more than willing to hear your case. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 19:53, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

HTGS' rebuttal was only to Kelob's data. You should be able to recreate my search by writing 'site:nzherald.co.nz "declaration of independence"' and you can do a spot-check to see that the majority of hits are not false positives.

And no, I don't think the RM should be re-opened, I'm dissapointed editors didn't evaluate anything for themselves and relied on flawed data but ultimately that is how many RMs and discussions on Wikipedia go. I do disagree about the common name part of the statement in the close however, as I believe it was contested that the data used by the nominator was flawed. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Traumnovelle, thanks. My spot-check of the first page of search results turned up 3/10 positives. It appears that "declaration of independence" can apply also to Taiwan, wine, and Catalonia. But I will amend my statement to reflect your clarification after the close and that mentions of HW in the Herald are usually paired with Declaration.

I do agree that some decisions are made with bad data. Just yesterday I had to close this travesty. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 20:14, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Do you mean 3/10 false positives? Anyhow thanks for the amend, and yeah that was a terrible RM. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2026 (UTC)