User talk:Macrakis

I wonder if you'd care to comment: I'm getting fed up with POV-pushing idiots trying to impose their own definitions of "shepherd's pie" and "cottage pie", and have drafted in my sandbox a possible opening section for the main text of the article explaining the facts of the nomenclature. I have asked User:SchroCat to comment, too, as he has done his share of repelling boarders. If you are minded to look in, please feel free to edit the text in my sandbox. Tim riley talk 13:27, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

@Tim riley: Thanks for asking me to comment. I agree that the POV-pushers are very annoying. But I'm not at all convinced that writing a long Terminology section will make any difference at all. Without actually reviewing all the past incidents, I seem to remember that they all edit the lead, and don't touch the body of the article, where the explanation is already quite clear. I'm pretty sure that they don't even read the body of the article.

Since the POV-pushers are typically (always?) anonymous, we can only speculate about their motivations. On this and other food articles, there seem to be several cases:

1. The naïve corrector. "Everyone knows that XXX, that's what my dad always said".
2. The logical corrector. "Since it's called 'shepherd's', how could it possibly be made of anything but sheep-meat?"
3. The troll. "Let's see if I can annoy and provoke those holier-than-thou Wikipedia editors".
4. The gastronationalist. "I have to protect England from this offensive slander".

These overlap, of course. But in none of these cases is filling out the body of the article going to make any difference.

I have had similar issues on this article (and some others):

• Whipped cream: "everyone knows" that Chantilly contains sugar (1); logically, it must have been invented at the Château de Chantilly (2); how could you possibly think that crème chantilly isn't of French origin? (4). See my recent revert on the French WP, where I seem to remember fr:User:Fleur44 being particularly outraged years ago, but I can't find the quote.

I did of course provide full sources for my edits, but Fleur44 cut the relevant paragraph claiming "Source non vérifiable et invérifiable" apparently because my sources weren't available online. This is a rare case where it is not just the lead which is mis-edited.

---

As for your specific text, I love the full documentation, but the multiple, extensive, in-line quotations just lengthen the article without making it more complete or clearer, because they largely overlap in meaning. Rather than something of the form

Author A says 'the moon is made of green cheese'[footnote A]. Author B in their book BBook writes 'Curds are the main substance of the moon'.[Footnote BBook] Dictionary D defines the moon as 'a celestial body largely composed of cheese'.[Footnote DDict]

I would much prefer to write

The moon is widely said to be made of green cheese.[footnote A][footnote BBook][footnote DDict]

You'll see this style in action at Whipped cream#History (which I wrote). It does mention specific authors when they are famous, and equally importantly their geographic location, since that is relevant. But mostly the bibliographic information is in the footnotes.

I'm not a big fan of quote= in footnotes, but if we have to have quotes, I'd put them there rather than the body text.

You start the terminology section with a claim that British usage "tends" to distinguish them, citing the OCF. But that article is particularly prescriptive, so I wouldn't count on it. And it seems to reflect Helen Saberi's position, so attributing the quote to the OCF gives is perhaps more weight than it deserves. Anyway, the OCF isn't supposed to reflect British usage in particular, is it?

Using the M-W dictionary definition as evidence for usage in the US is equally unreliable. After all, we have a full table of usage in cookbooks which shows a US Cottage Pie made with lamb, and one made with pork (!).

In any case, all this careful documentation won't change the POV-pushers' behavior. Macrakis (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

PS I have added a geographical annotation to the cookbook authors in the table so it's easier to "read off" the correlation (or not) of name and ingredients. --Macrakis (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this thoughtful response. I had toyed with adding nationalities to the the table, and I think your additions are a good move. I'll confer further with SchroCat and then, I think, add a preliminary section on terminology, though I fear you are quite right that it may not deter the POV brigade. Tim riley talk 18:31, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks once more for stepping in again to remedy disruptive editing. I requested page protection yesterday, which brought in an editor who restored your edit, and also protected the page for three days. I hope that will give you a little vacation from continuously removing inappropriate content from Dubin's article. All the best, AM for Dubin (talk) 12:36, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Macrakis. I recently posted an edit request at Talk:Glenn Dubin#Epstein section with a ping to you, so this is a little nudge asking if you can please take a look. In light of recent news, the Giuffre testimony has significantly deteriorated in its reliability, to the point where her allegations about the Dubins are WP:FRINGE, and should not be given a platform in a Wikipedia BLP. I am hoping you have time to make whatever edits you believe will return the article to its previous NPOV. Once again, thank you for your concern and efforts. AM for Dubin (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I am conspiring with SchroCat to put the article up for FAC. He and I will be co-nominees and we would be pleased if you cared to be another. (The duties would be purely nominal, unless you were inclined to wade in.) Tim riley talk 15:37, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

An honor! Thanks. Macrakis (talk) 01:58, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Excellent. Duly nominated on behalf of all three. Tim riley talk 08:31, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@Tim riley: Perhaps I have misunderstood the FAC process. User:SchroCat's recent Talk comments seem to suggest that we shouldn't continue improving the article during the FAC, while I think of it as encouraging us to improve the article to make it worth of FA ("wading in"). If it is not a good idea to work on the article (with of course the expected back-and-forth among editors) during FAC, then I withdraw my co-nomination until we resolve the issues I mention on Talk. Macrakis (talk) 16:39, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, it's a question of balance. One tweaks an article in response to helpful suggestions at FAC (and Lord knows I've done a helluva lot of that in my time) but it's not really fair to reviewers to introduce one's own gratuitous tweaks in the middle of the review process - it gives reviewers a moving target that's harder to hit and may mean that early reviewers are supporting or opposing quite different versions of the article from those later reviewers are looking at. Tim riley talk 17:44, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Got it. So since the article needs considerable reorganization to reach FA, I will withdraw my co-nomination. Sorry for making extra work for everyone. --Macrakis (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

@Macrakis: The reason why I am sending you this message is because User:ScrubbedFalcon closed the discussion as merge, I 100% disagree with it. I have created an against the merge section on the page Talk:Ferrero SpA, with multiple reasons of why I am against it. Catfurball (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, WK Kellogg included the North American breakfast cereal business of Kellogg's, which I hope was well covered in the Kellogg's article. If not, that should be addressed in the Kellogg's article and cross-referenced in the Ferrero article. I don't think it needs a standalone article. Macrakis (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits and cleaning up the Bacon Jam article a few months back. I added a brief note on its recent appearances in US restaurants (Applebees, Dunkin Donuts) in the history section. Is it an appropriate addition or should it be rolled back?

If you think it's an appropriate addition, do you have any expansion on that note from restaurant usage before 2025? ☘︎☘︎☘︎ALEXHammeke (talk | guestbook | SANDBOX!!!) 07:14, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Documenting its appearance in major chains' menus is certainly appropriate! According to Gemini, other chains introduced bacon jam before Applebees and Dunkin Donuts: Sonic and Red Robin (2021), Denny's (2023), Dairy Queen (2024). You definitely need to check those out carefully and find reliable sources before adding them, because there are many ways Gemini could have gone wrong: it might have confused bacon jam with other bacon products (Gemini mentioned Denny's Baconalia in 2011, but that didn't include bacon jam); it might have gotten the dates wrong, etc.

Gemini also came up with this: The Bacon Jams (now TBJ Gourmet) popularized bacon jam on QVC in 2014. By 2015, they had created a shelf-stable, USDA approved product, which they distributed through Gordon Food Service. By 2016, it was sold in over 1000 restaurants. I don't have the time to chase down reliable sources for this -- do you? Macrakis (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response! I should have some time over the next few nights to look. I wanted to give a basic two or three line addition at first and then see if I could expand further from there with older dates/restaurant adoption, etc. and have sources on hand first before adding more content. For some reason I was having an issue with the citation generator last night so I uploaded them manually for now and will clean that up tonight

A quick google search found a press release for the Sonic bacon jam burger, so that'll be in my next edit ☘︎☘︎☘︎ALEXHammeke (talk | guestbook | SANDBOX!!!) 19:47, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits to the Arden, Berkeley, Grindlay, Swindon, Wentworth family pages earlier this week.

Can I just clarify that you have stated the claims of all but the Berkeley and Arden families are disputed simply because they do not feature in the cited English genealogy by Anthony Richard (1972), or are there specific disputes raised in the book? I couldn’t see anything on first reading.

Given that all the families’ origin claims are somewhat ambiguous given the time period in question, would “less well founded” or “less well supported” be more accurate than actually disputed?

Thank you. AndrewFletcher (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

The footnote points at pages 51-53 of Wagner's book. Page 51 says, "So far as I know, the ancestry of two extant English families only, Arden and Berkeley, can be carried back to pre-Conquest Englishmen." and even then, for Berkeley, he says "one link in the chain is open to doubt and the suggested identification of the first ancestor is no more than a conjecture" (p. 52).

That is evidence that is acceptable for Wikipedia. For background, as it happens, my partner is a historian of Britain (tenured professor) and has published on Domesday among other things. She tells me that among British medieval historians, it is pretty well agreed that most genealogies (other than royal ones) older than about the 12th century are untrustworthy, for many reasons. Surnames were not stable. There were no parish registers. There are few surviving records. And many of these genealogies are at best tendentious (interpreting evidence with a preconception about what it says) if not outright factitious or fraudulent. Some articles to read: Fact and Fiction in Family History; How to look for records of...Medieval and early modern family history.

Obviously, like everyone, these families had ancestry predating the Conquest. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether a specific line of descent from a particular ancestor can be established without speculation and conjecture.

I suspect that the truth is that these genealogies are even less solid than just "disputed" or "less well-founded". But I don't have good evidence for this and frankly it's not a major concern of mine. --Macrakis (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Macrakis, I'm thinking about writing an article entitled Etymology of chocolate or Etymology of cacao and chocolate. I'm hoping you could give some guidance toward doing so, particularly around structure and whether grouping two etymologies often discussed in tandem is advisable? Whonting (talk) 03:16, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning, but the word is etymologically Turkish, which makes it valid. I didn't put it because it was supposed to be Turkish invention. Beshogur (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

@Beshogur: The heading in Category:Turkish words and phrases clearly says "This category is not for articles about concepts and things but only for articles about the words themselves. Please keep this category purged of everything that is not actually an article about a word or phrase." We don't use categories for the etymology of words, otherwise we'd have a gazillion entries for Category:French words and phrases since English has borrowed so many (photography, system, people, ...). We do use it when the article is about the word or phrase, like Honi soit qui mal y pense, Liberté, égalité, fraternité, etc. That said, the French category also has many inappropriate entries. --Macrakis (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

You compare bunch of French/Normand words that entered English 1000 years ago to yogurt, ayran, etc? Seems cherry picking. Beshogur (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Also since the influence is so massive, Category:Lists of English words of French origin is categorized as Category:French words and phrases. With your way of thinking, ayran and yogurt are not Turkish words. Beshogur (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm following the stated policy. And photography is from 1830, not 1000 years ago. If you want examples of more modern borrowings which are not listed in the X words and phrases category, consider for example Era Fascista (Italian, 1924), Nouvelle théologie (French, 1960s), Parkour (French, 2002), moussaka (Turkish, Greek, Arabic, etc.), etc. Of course, there are also cases where the category has been misapplied for other languages.

I am certainly not saying that yogurt and ayran are not Turkish words. I am saying that the yogurt and ayran articles don't belong in Category:Turkish words and phrases. --Macrakis (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh, and re Category:Lists of English words of French origin, that is a category for *lists of words* and is makes sense to put that under Category:French words and phrases, because it is about words, not articles. You'll notice that List of English words of French origin (A–C) points to wikitionary entries (i.e. words), not to Wikipedia articles. --Macrakis (talk)

Moussaka isn't a Turkish word for sure, let it be so if you like that way, but I still disagree. Beshogur (talk) 21:56, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, the Turkish spelling is musakka, and it's even listed by the Afyonkarahisar Valiliği İl Kültür ve Turizm Müdürlüğü and there's a Musakka restaurant in Afyon. Obviously the word originally comes from Arabic. But as I say, we do not have a Category for the etymological origin of words. That's the job of Wiktionary, which indeed shows the categories of the Turkish word musakka as:

Categories:

• Turkish terms inherited from Ottoman Turkish
• Turkish terms derived from Ottoman Turkish
• Turkish terms derived from Arabic
• Turkish terms derived from the Arabic root س ق ع
• Turkish lemmas
• Turkish nouns

Keyifle ye --Macrakis (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I mean ayran and yogurt are etymologically Turkish words, musakka is not. Beshogur (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. But that's not what Category:Turkish words and phrases is about. --Macrakis (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Macrakis, could you point me to a Wikipedia policy that says one doesn't need to mention the United States in an article set within the US? (I'm referring to your recent edit of Great Bay (New Hampshire).) That goes against my experience editing geographic articles, so I'm wondering if something has changed. Thanks, Ken Gallager (talk) 13:00, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Interesting point. The underlying principle, as far as I can tell, is avoiding ambiguity and using names which are "familiar" to our readers, presumed to be educated speakers of English (but not necessarily Americans, native English-speakers, or resident in an English-speaking country).

There's a similar issue with Canadian provinces, Australian states, and British counties. That is, is it "Darwin, Northern Territory" or "Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia"; is it "Yellowknife, Northwest Territories", or "Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, Canada". On the other hand, I think it's clear that Italian regions, French departments, German states, etc. should be treated as unfamiliar. (Addition: unless the context makes it clear, e.g., in an article about an Italian, French, or German topic.)

Then of course there are internationally recognized cities like Los Angeles, Paris, Tokyo, etc. which don't need either subnational or national qualifiers.

Let's see what I can find:

• WP:NCGN#General guidelines "References: When referring to a place from another article (e.g. in infoboxes) note these guidelines do not prohibit, nor do they require, the suffixing of country names to the place. Both "Middletown, Connecticut, US" and "Middletown, Connecticut" are permissible. The presence of the country should not be changed arbitrarily."
• WP:PLACEDAB ..."describes conventions for determining the titles of Wikipedia articles on places, and for the use of place names in Wikipedia articles." So it's not clear whether any particular recommendation applies to titles or mentions. It clearly says that if there is ambiguity, there should be a disambiguation tag, e.g. "Paris, Maine" or "Red River (Victoria)"; but is that just for titles, or also mentions?
• WP:ENGPLACE says for England: "When the city and county use variants of the same name, disambiguate with England for clarity throughout the English-speaking world; thus Lincoln, England, not Lincoln, Lincolnshire." It isn't clear whether that's just for titles, or also for mentions. But in any case, this suggests that English counties are not considered "familiar".
• WP:USPLACE#United States covers the case of ambiguous placenames within states, but not states themselves.
• WP:USPLACE#State: "The common names of states are just the state name..." and "When referring to U.S. states in prose:..." does not mention adding ", United States" at all.

So I was right to say that we "don't need to say US when mentioning US states", but guidelines do discourage changing the status quo ("The presence of the country should not be changed arbitrarily."), depending on how you interpret "arbitrarily".

Given the absence of clear guidance (do not prohibit nor require), I thought I'd look at what the usual practice is. I asked Perplexity Computer to choose 50 random articles in each of Buildings, Ponds, and Companies. (I avoided rivers because they often flow through multiple states.) I include the snippet to verify, and sure enough, I had to hand-correct some cases wich used "Place, State, in the United States". It looks like "Place, State, [in the] United States" is only found in 17% of those articles. Of course, that's not a huge sample, and it may well be that states that are less well-known internationally will include "United States" more often (maybe Delaware, New Mexico?). "Washington, United States" is probably likely to be interpreted as Washington, DC, so "Washington State" or "Washington State, United States" might be helpful. You can find the full report at User talk:Macrakis/Place, State, United States.

I guess the conclusion is that the usual practice is not to include "United States" after a state, but it is not mandated by policy. I will revert following the "arbitrarily" guidance, but remove the link to United States, which is definitely unnecessary. Macrakis (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I really appreciate the thought you put into this. A lot more than my cursory scanning of a few WikiProjects! Best wishes, Ken Gallager (talk) 12:08, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page More veneto, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add a title to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help). Below are the references causing this error:
  • Vocabolario Treccani (in Italian). s.v. 'More veneto' https://www.treccani.it/vocabolario/more-veneto/. Retrieved 2026-07-06. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

You were right to call it out and I will not dignify the latest insults with a response in kind.

I have come to the conclusion that my continued participation in what has become a Punch and Judy pantomime is not conducive to a resolution of the dispute, so it is best that I step back and cease to participate further. I think I have made my arguments sufficiently clearly for an arbitrator to summarise them. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Did you decide not to take this to the DR noticeboard? I see that the edit war in live space has started again. I'm not walking myself into a topic ban over an SD so I'm walking away and the stupidity will stand until someone else is brave or foolish enough to tackle the culture warriors. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@JMF I don't really have an opinion as to whether or not "secular" is used, I just recognize that it is apparently controversial. Ergo, if you are referring to me as one of said culture warriors, I don't appreciate the characterization as I have no objections to it being included, I was just trying to choose the path of least resistance.

The discussion had died down for quite some time, and it seemed that we had consensus that Modern calendar era was worse, so I was just trying to move us toward a better option, even if there is continual workshopping to it. The only position I am coming into this as is one of a copyeditor. ~ oklopfer (💬) 17:22, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm on vacation... (not Wikibreak, regular vacation). Back in a week or so. Macrakis (talk) 20:56, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@Oklopfer, No, I wasn't referring to you. But now you have taken a side. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:57, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Revised for clarity --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2026 (UTC) Least said soonest mended. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Macrakis. I have been trying to get other editors involved in keeping the Dubin articles as NPOV and as WP:BLP-compliant as possible, with limited success. In both the Glenn Dubin and Eva Andersson-Dubin articles, the subject's connection to Epstein was added improperly to the lead. I hope you won’t mind taking just a few minutes to help restore neutrality to those leads. Also, Glenn Dubin#Giuffre lawsuit allegations has been bloated and UNDUE for several months now, in particular the Rizzo paragraph, which has nothing to do with Glenn directly, and should probably be removed. Thanks so much, AM for Dubin (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Agreed that mentions in lead are undue innuendo. Removed. Macrakis (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Macrakis. AM for Dubin (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi again. Would you consider the second part of my suggestion above concerning Glenn Dubin#Giuffre lawsuit allegations? It seems to me this really needs to be addressed, for the reasons I stated above. AM for Dubin (talk) 16:05, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

The Rizzo story is peculiar, because it never says that the Dubins did anything wrong, only that the same girl who was at the Dubin's residence was separately asked by Maxwell and Epstein to have sex with some unnamed person, implying that there is a connection. But I don't have the Brown book, so I don't know what exactly it says. I have adjusted the wording to make it clearer that Rizzo's claims were never tested in court. --Macrakis (talk) 17:02, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Chicken à la King, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A generic name error. References show this error when author or editor name parameters use placeholder names, or the name of the newspaper or organisation, instead of the source's actual author or editor name. If no human author is given, the fields should be removed. (Fix | Ask for help). Below are the references causing this error:
  • The Editors of American Heritage (1964). "Chicken à la King". In McCully, Helen (ed.). The American Heritage Cookbook and Illustrated History of American Eating & Drinking. American Heritage Publishing. p. 472 – via Internet Archive. {{cite book}}: |last= has generic name (help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Kudos for having lisped since 1968. I was introduced to Lisp in 1981 when Lisp was already in its third decade and often I feel old around here. I didn't often have to say cdar or cddar, although cadr and cddr come up a lot and have somewhat understandable pronunciations. Quale (talk) 01:18, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Dear Macrakis --

I'm writing an article for the British food publication Vittles on the way food is written about on Wikipedia. User:Whonting recommended your work, and I really enjoyed reading your essay on authenticity :) I was wondering if you would be interested in being interviewed about your experiences of working on food articles, specifically the stylistic aspects that are unique to Wikipedia as a platform, and the way in which writing is produced and changed over time?

I read and really enjoyed your interview in Gourmet Magazine -- I'd hope to cover some slightly different ground, though would understand if you're tired of talking to the media! Petsquirrel (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@Petsquirrel: Thanks for getting in touch. I'd be happy to talk. Why don't you email me using "Email this user" so we can arrange the details? --Macrakis (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I will, thanks! :) Petsquirrel (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I deleted your mentions of a Hittorff Pavillon in the Café des Ambassadeurs (as none of the sources mentions it) and the one on the Hittorf (disambiguation) page that linked to Café des Ambassadeurs. If there is a Hittorf Pavillon it is located on n°19 de la rue du faubourg Poissonnière in Paris, but not at the former Café des Ambassadeurs. And if you want to name the pavillon in the Café des Ambassadeurs it is probably known as Pavillon Varin according to this source. And to add to the confusion, it could also refer the Pavillon Gabriel in the Alcazar d'Été or the Pavillon Ledoyen. - DonCalo (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

@DonCalo: I could swear that I had a reliable source for that, but if I did, I should have included it in my edit. I may have misinterpreted something I read. Thanks for your attention to getting this right. --Macrakis (talk) 06:56, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Well, it took me a while to understand where things went wrong. Hittorff built several pavillons in the in the Champs-Élysées district (as mentioned above). However, none of these were known as a Hittorff Pavillon, and they were not among his most notable buildings, as they are not mentioned on the English, German or French articles about him. No problem, mistakes are made and they can be resolved. Happy editing ... - DonCalo (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

The article Hittorff Pavillon has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wrong redirect

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. DonCalo (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2026 (UTC)