User talk:Maltazarian

Special:Diff/1341144061

1. First there was entertaining of the notion that there was the lean towards the primary use of 'killing' in sources which was ultimately proven false days later.^[1][2]

2. [M]ainly known simply as a terrorist is not properly comprehending this is only the incidental part of the definition of assassination.^[3] Lumbering in thought (talk) 09:42, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't really understand your message to be honest. First of all I was in favour of renaming the article to "assassination", just so that's clear.

As for 1: do you mean that I should not have replied to the user that claimed there was a "lean towards the primary use of 'killing' in sources", as that would be "entertaining" the notion? I was not the one suggesting that sources called it a killing, I was replying to someone arguing for a source calling it "killing" would not be contradicting a source calling it an "assassination", as assassinations are a subset of killings. I was arguing against using sources that termed it a "killing" as evidence against it being an assassination, and I don't think the fact it was demonstrated days later that sources prefer using assassination makes it wrong for me to have made that argument. It just makes it a moot point.

As for 2: that was referring to a possible justification for having some articles say "assassination" despite the existence of articles such as the Killing of Ayman al-Zawahiri, which uses "killing". I was suggesting that users could argue that al-Zawahiri, as opposed to Khamenei, shouldn't be named "assassination" because of it not being for political reasons, which is an argument that, if accepted, would make using "killing" for al-Zawahiri and "assassination" for Khamenei not be inconsistent. It would in fact be in line with the Merriam Webster definition you linked there.

If you could please clarify what exactly you meant by your comment I would much appreciate it. Kind regards ―Maltazarian ^{(talk${\displaystyle \lor }$investigate)} 10:38, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

For 1. From what I can tell you are aware that you could have done more, which has satisfied the WP:GLUE essay. Wikipedia involves the entirety of the topic, even if you feel out of depth. I would argue you still have to ask for sources even when unsure of the answer they would respond with.

For 2. I am only troubled more because for al-Zawahri, you have claimed that mainly known simply as a terrorist to be a restatement of interpreting Wikipedia's naming convention as disavowing "assassination" because of it not being for political reasons. I suggest you read Great March of Return and note that it says Hamas militants shift[ed] away from violence towards non-violent forms of protest. Unlike this mental shortcut, positions, offices, and occupational titles are just those, not inherent justifications for characterizations of events. Lumbering in thought (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I just don't think 1 is that big of a deal. It was a situation where sources were very much fresh and still developing. The point I made doesn't cease to be a point just because the other person I'm responding to based their argument off false assumptions. Asking for sources wouldn't have been useful because there were already sources posted that labelled it a killing and not an assassination, and those were obviously what they were referring to. It's still a valid observation that sources, even if they are a minority, referring to it as a killing rather than an assassination does not mean they are contradicting or disputing the majority view. So it made sense to say so even without knowing if they were in a majority or a minority.

As for the second part: a characterization of an event can be dependent on the positions, offices and occupational titles of those involved. If a person steps down from the position of head of state it would be called a resignation if that person was a president, but an abdication if they were a monarch. It would perhaps have been more formally correct for me to say that he was someone killed merely for engaging in terrorism rather than for political reasons, as an assassination is dependent not on titles but on motive, but I see no use in arguing over minor semantic differences when it should be clear what I mean regardless of the different wording. ―Maltazarian ^{(talk${\displaystyle \lor }$investigate)} 17:29, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

MOS:JOBTITLE did include those respective types, and yet WP:NCENPOV did not make the characterization dependent on them, far from it. In fact [t]o keep article names short, avoid including more words than are necessary to identify the event. For example, the adjective "terrorist" is usually not needed. The example chosen was my example in particular, where the mental shortcuts run rampant. An event focusing on the changing of those respective types inherently implies that previous ones had consensus, hence there's no inherent justification. That's why we don't see Abdication of King Edward VIII and Resignation of President Richard Nixon as proper titles. Thus Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI would be redundant according to Wikipedia. Lumbering in thought (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Genuinely no idea what you're going on about at this point mate. ―Maltazarian ^{(talk${\displaystyle \lor }$investigate)} 18:29, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I put your mentioned [possible] dependant characterization of an event and my previously mentioned inherent justification together. Lumbering in thought (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Billabong, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Backwater was added. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 21:59, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2014 FIFA World Cup knockout stage, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Salvador was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

This little guy is great. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 08:15, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2002 FIFA World Cup knockout stage, links pointing to the disambiguation pages Miyagi, Niigata and Shizuoka were added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Re: this; if anything, to me personally your engagement is far more collaborative than the others' on that talk page. No hard feelings, UnpetitproleX (talk) 05:59, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree with closing Talk:Age verification system#Requested move 2 April 2026 as a clear policy-based supermajority, but I'm not sure what you mean by the concern that was raised was addressed. I don't see any edits addressing my comment.
(Also thanks for handling closing. I think closer are the non-content role this project needs the most right now.) Aaron Liu (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, yeah I should have been more clear. That was meant to be in reference to the Oppose comment. And yeah I've began closing RMs specifically because I've noticed it's only really a handful of people who are keeping it running (as in doing the boring stuff like relisting, closing and moving), and that inevitably leads to discussions sometimes piling up and forming backlogs. I've been trying my hand at helping around in different ways, GA reviews etc. and this seemed like a good place to do that.^{and one where the backlog can actually be cleared, unlike WP:GAN..}
⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 15:20, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Walla Walla River, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Walla Walla was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Oof that was part of a copyedit on an article I was doing a GA review on, that's a bad look. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 18:12, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Maltazarian! Regarding the RM in the section header, could you clarify your close as to the target title? In reading the discussion, I would lean to moving it to Baseball rubbing mud rather than Lena Blackburne Baseball Rubbing Mud. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

oh yeah wait of course sorry, i actually have no idea what happened there, I always move the article or file a technical request after closing myself, no idea how i messed up the close and forgot to move it ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 21:09, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

ive left a message on BarrelProof's page now, hopefully should be sorted out quickly ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 21:14, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello! Have you considered trying out User:BilledMammal/Move+? It provides automated tools for all move-related activities (including the closures of requested moves). And if you decided to apply for page mover, you can get more options! 1isall (talk | contribs) 01:11, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I actually have been meaning to try it, just haven't gotten around to it yet, but thanks for asking! ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 01:14, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

The Core Contest has begun! You have until May 31 (23:59 UTC) to make eligible changes. Although you are most welcome (and encouraged) to continue working on the article, changes after May 31 will not be considered for rankings or prizes.

We are now about a week in, and it's worth sharing some issues we judges have noticed in the past:

• Understandability is extra important for big topics like these. Avoid jargon when possible; give context (and of course, citations), even for things that seem obvious; and always consider the age-old adage from Iridescent: "would a bright 14-year old with no prior knowledge of the topic understand this?"
• The source, the whole source, and nothing but the source. Instead of asking "what do I want to say in this article", ask yourself: "what do most high-quality, reliable and recent sources say about this topic?"
• Take a global perspective whenever possible. If you're writing about someone from France, consider looking at recent, high-quality sources in French. Amid language barriers, consider the careful use of an online translation tool or *shudder* a language dictionary.
• Plan, plan, plan! Make an outline, a draft TOC, or some kind of gameplan. Big articles are a different beast, and it's worth figuring out structural and logistical aspects early on.

Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – Aza24 (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah it began like 9 days ago I'm trying my best 😭 ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 00:18, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

Thanks for your change to the hatnote. By the way, in your welcoming message on this page "if the first impression you decide to give me is an inability to maintain basic quorum." I think you mean "decorum", not "quorum".

Cheers Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:04, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh yeah you're right. I hadn't even noticed that, thanks. There is of course no quorum for my talk page, a single editor is all that is required to leave a comment. :) ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 05:07, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Maltazarian, don't worry no issues with your close here. I just thought I'd suggest implementing WP:SOCKREMOVE or WP:SOCKSTRIKE before cloing a discussion with a sock !vote in it next time. I'm referring to the last comment if not obvious; also in case you weren't aware there is a user script that will show blocked users with a strikethrough, so that socks can be more easily detected. Or this is an option in user settings, can't quite remember. Regards, CNC (talk) 13:09, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I would have done that if I had known it was a sock. You know what, that makes a lot of sense now that you say it. That guy appeared out of nowhere, I haven't seen him at RM before, and made a ton of replies in RM discussions (some quite dubious ones). I will go install that script/change that setting now, thank you for letting me know. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 13:17, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

If you search for block in preferences you'll find the option listed as "Strike out usernames that have been blocked" under appearances. It's certainly a game changer when it comes to closing discussions :) CNC (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I already found and enabled it. In hindsight I can't believe I didn't have that turned on already, just a total oversight on my part. He kind of carpet bombed RM before being blocked and as most RM discussions have limited participation that kind of disruption can end up mattering a whole lot (I'm doing some damage control right now). Again, I really appreciate you letting me know about the results of that sock-puppet investigation. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 13:56, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

You're more than welcome (forgot that part before), whatever helps keep the socks at bay. I'm surprised it's not default on rather than off tbh, but anyways. I only just bothered to look at the user contribs, making multiple !votes minutes apart at RfD is certainly not keeping a low profile, no wonder they were caught. If you see users appearing out of nowhere and bombing !votes at RM then worth getting to know SPI better. Not sure if there is a list of RM disruptors to cross reference with, but from time to time they do appear so is useful having editors keep an eye out. Regards, CNC (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I will take that advice to heart, thank you. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 14:25, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

		Citation Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to Maltazarian for collecting more than 9 points during the WikiProject Unreferenced articles's March 2026 backlog drive. Your contributions played a crucial role in sourcing over 8362 unsourced articles during the drive. Thank you so much for participating and helping to reduce the backlog! – DreamRimmer ■ 16:37, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh that's neat, but I didn't do much. I remember I got caught up trying to improve articles instead of just adding citations and moving on. I'll take it though. Think other work I've done compensates more than enough for my lacking effort. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 16:42, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Body of water, links pointing to the disambiguation pages Galicia and Springer were added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your focus and service on the Jan. 6 RfC. Thanks again for the analysis...it'll really steer the discussion towards a better direction. Much love, rock on eternal! ⚠︎ ArkadenBoden ⚠︎ (talk) 11:25, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! It did take quite a bit of effort so it makes me really happy to see that other editors appreciated the result. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 04:53, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

• Please explain why it was moved to an alternative variant instead of the primary one (first option). Why not provide an analysis of the positions and arguments? Teterev53 (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

  I've updated the close to have a rationale. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 04:50, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I have opened an AN discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Concerns over the handling of an RM pinging dispute that may be of interest to you. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 12:17, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

		Home-Made Barnstar
		I meant what I said to you at AN. I sincerely appreciate the sort of feedback that keeps me on the straight and narrow when I'm getting upset about something. Simonm223 (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, and I was very much hoping you'd feel that way, because generally speaking my experience of you is that you're one of the saner voices in contentious topic areas and a net positive to them. Also must of course be noted it takes two to tango, and there were a lot of dancers in that discussion, so to speak. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 15:30, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry I did not realize you were male. Tiamut (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bartolomé Island, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pinnacle Rock was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

You seem to be pretty proficient at closing requested moves, and you meet all the requirements for the page move right, so I recommend you apply so you don't need to keep requesting moves at WP:RM/TR. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs}} 13:51, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeahhhh I've been meaning to get around to doing that. I guess I just felt like it would be kinda weird to immediately go requesting user rights the moment I met the criteria, but I'll get on it. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 13:54, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

And to be completely honest, Move+ makes it very easy to be lazy and not do it considering it lets you just hit a button and it autofiles it for you.⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 13:56, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

That's fair, although to be honest I think I requested the right on the day I passed 3,000 edits (although it was a couple of days before anyone actually reviewed the request) {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs}} 14:10, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Maltazarian. 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! ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 04:44, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Neat, thanks for the quick response to my request. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 04:45, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Hm, I just wanted to say hi! Enjoy! Squawk7700 (talk) 01:05, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

My thanks! ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 01:21, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding this, it was your personal assurance, prefaced by "For the record" that the list would be pre-Mandate only that convinced me to support a split. The idea that people who fall between the cracks can simply be appended to this new list is unacceptable because it will create a biased article, with members of the Yishuv filling in the end. I am sure you understand that historical claims to Palestine are a source of great contestation. The whole point of removing this list from List of Palestinians was to remove that contestation, not replicate it in the inverse at a new page. The pre-state list should be firmly pre-state. Tiamut (talk) 05:29, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I would also like to note that no one was troubled about the lack of a list for Yishuv figures not on the List of Israelis page before. Insisting they must be added to a List of people from Palestine (historical region), using special exemptions, is very strange. WP:SAL notes there should be clearly define criteria and lists are generally not designed to be comprehensive. Tiamut (talk) 05:35, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

That "for the record" comment just says that the List of people from Palestine (historical region) will have inclusion criteria involving some kind of cut-off, while the List of Palestinians will not. It also says it's a matter for post-split consensus, which it is, and which is something I don't have exclusive control over. I can't tell people what consensus they can and can't reach, and all consensus is subject to change. Also, if you had opposed the split that wouldn't really have changed the outcome. I apologized for my comments in the pre-split workshopping discussion led to a lack of clarity, because it did lead to arguments and confusion after the split that I wasn't immediately there to help clear it up, but it really didn't affect the outcome of the split discussion. There was a clear consensus among editors that some sort of a split had to be done, while consensus on how it should be done was the main point of contention.

As for the whole Yishuv thing and appending people who fall between the cracks to the list: that was just one of the possible ways to move forward. I listed 4 of them. I didn't say one of them had to be chosen, I was merely giving options, and I even recognized that adding people to the list who didn't qualify for the other lists would be a bit unnatural for inclusion criteria.

I don't know why you posted this on my user talk page instead of on the list's talk page, because this doesn't seem like something that should go here instead of there, but regardless of what the reasoning was I ask that you keep discussion about the list at the list's talk page. My user talk page isn't the place for this. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 07:50, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I posted here because it was about your comment on another page in reply to me, and I thought it would be better to discuss it with you personally as the new page's talk is already quite cluttered. I am understanding from your reply that I am not welcome on your talk page though, which is fine. Bye! Tiamut (talk) 08:03, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

No it's not that you're not welcome here. I understand why you felt it was best to post here and it's really no big deal, it's just that I feel it's a bit inappropriate to discuss the question here instead of on the talk page. It takes away from the ability for other people, especially uninvolved editors, to understand the discussion. You're certainly more than welcome to leave a message here if it's something related to me personally, as is everyone on the Wiki. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 08:09, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I already raised the same points pertaining to the article on its page, so no one is being deprived of any info. I will say that the idea that the time period for the split was to be determined later is incorrect, based on your own wording here, which is actually very clear. If your position has since changed, then in my opinion the vote is null and void because it was carried out under false pretenses. I also do not appreciate the implication that even if I had opposed the split, it would have passed anyway, as it is entirely speculative; at least one editor did take their lead from my lack of opposition. And the discussion would not have been speedily closed as it was because the votes were unanimous. We cannot know if more objections would have been registered or not. I will also note your for the record comment left room for historical Palestinians to remain at List of Palestinians and I said we needed a clean chronological split to avoid problems. If that is not to be the case for the new article, then I see no reason it should be for List of Palestinians either. You took the initiative to solve an intractable problem at that page, mediating, but if your mediation was based on a false framing that you are now backing out of, it bodes badly for future consensus-building efforts, because there is an erosion of trust. Tiamut (talk) 10:26, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I haven't suggested that I said the time period for the split was to be determined later. What I was saying was that the comment you linked, where I said "for the record", was saying that the amount of overlap will depend on post-move consensus. That's affected by things other than what time period to include on each list, and I believe when I wrote that I was mainly referring to post-move consensus at List of Palestinians. I was saying all of that because you said prefaced by For the record that the list would be pre-Mandate only and that wasn't what that comment was saying.

I haven't changed my "position" (I don't really have one), but yes, I was saying we should use the Mandate as a cut-off. That said, I'm telling you right now that I have no control over how other people decide that cut-off should be implemented, or whether or not they come up with an entirely new idea. There wasn't much talk of including the whole Mandate period in the historical list when we were having the split discussion, so how was I suppose to know people would start discussing that after we had split the lists? At most I expected some disagreement about the exact details of using the creation of the Mandate as a cut-off, I certainly didn't expect people to advocate for something totally different. The thing is I can't do anything about that. All I can do is adapt to how people's minds are changing and how the consensus is developing, which is what I'm trying to do right now.

I'm only suggesting new ideas because that has happened, not because it was my intention when I started the split discussion. I'm doing it to try to adapt to how people's minds are changing and how the process of forming a consensus moves, and that's pretty much the only thing I can do, because consensus can change. The split wasn't started under false pretenses, nor did it end under them. What did happen is that new ideas were presented and new consensus started forming after the split discussion was over and done with. Just like any other discussion, the split discussion is subject to later consensus overruling it, and I can't undo it without the consent of the others who voted in favour of it, because I don't own the split any more than they do. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 11:08, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think you own the split but it was your split proposal that formed the basis for the vote. And it was very clear that pre-Mandate was the cut off, as underlined by removing the entire pre-Mandate list at List of Palestinians to the new page.

Yes, consensus can change. In a contentious topic article though, one should be very wary of attempts to redefine the basis upon which a unanimous vote was concluded.

I had hoped for stronger support from you for a clear chronological distinction, because I believe that is the best way to keep the new list away from several controversies associated with more modern times. That was the purpose of my communicating with you here, but it seems you are not interested in that and would rather facilitate encroaching repoliticization of the new page and the mixing of meanings, which was the major objection of the same people advocating for an expansion of the chronology here, to what was at List of Palestinians. Funny that. Tiamut (talk) 11:23, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

If the other editors force the issue I would back the cut-off at the start of the Mandate, but before forcing the issue like that it makes sense to suggest alternatives though, does it not? Either it resolves the situation in a way that everyone is happy with or it does nothing, so what is there to lose?

For example, I thought what you wanted was to avoid having the Yishuv who arrived in Israel during the Mandate filling up the list (which is why I was working off the cut-off being placed at the start of the Mandate in the first place), and wouldn't we be able to get that done by only allowing those who lived in Palestine before the creation of the Mandate to be on the list? Sure that's a slight deviation from what I thought was going to happen when I started the split discussion, but doesn't it still get the job done? It's surely preferrable to letting everybody who migrated to Palestine during the Mandate period onto the list, is it not? ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 11:54, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I want to minimize the potential for arguments and not create a list full of original research (grouping unlike groups together in one page). For example, there are currently two Yishuv members on the list, Sarah and Aaron Aaronsohn. Several reliable sources reject the idea that they are "from Palestine" because Sarah was born in the first Zionist colony in Palestine and Aaron came there from Romania. They are included because another reliable source calls them "Palestinian". The sources objecting to this are cited alongside the others, and for now, in the absence or more specific criteria, that is the compromise.

If the list is expanded to include those who lived up to 1948, there will be dozens of such entries. It will complicate an already complicated page and discussion. Tiamut (talk) 12:07, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Hmm I see. That ends up being part of the whole question about what it means to be from somewhere in the context of this list, and that, unlike the cut-off date, was actually something that was intended to be solved after the split.

I will have to go see how many such individuals would get added to the list if we allowed people who lived until 1948 to be on the list. Again, if it turns out nothing else is workable, I will default to supporting the cut-off be at 25 April 1920 as originally intended. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 12:16, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Conception Island, Bahamas

added a link pointing to Cat Island

Great Salt Pond

added a link pointing to Southeast Peninsula

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't know if this is a "reasonable time" (almost two weeks), but I was wondering if you could reopen the RM you closed. As it turns out, it has not been demonstrated that it's the primary topic at all (there is also a Champions Trophy in field hockey), and besides it's always called the "ICC" Champions Trophy in reliable sources. StAnselm (talk) 13:02, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, certainly reasonable in my opinion. In RM terms two weeks is within what a discussion can take anyways. I do see that another very similar RM is taking place, which I assume prompted this request, so what I'm going to do is reopen the discussion and then do a procedural close on it immediately to merge it with the other requested move. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 13:47, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! StAnselm (talk) 15:23, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for acting as closer in this matter.

Note that a number of the incoming links need to be updated to point to Whatta Man instead. 162 etc. (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh right I forgot about that, I will get on it, thanks for reminding me. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 17:24, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Maltazarian, please could I ask you to look at the discussion again? My concern is that the closure may not fully reflect the overall consensus when the split discussion and the RM are considered together. While there was support in the split discussion for separating the topics, much of that support appears to stem from the view that the Salt-N-Pepa song is the overwhelmingly more notable subject and therefore should have the standalone article at Whatta Man, with the Linda Lyndell song treated separately or summarized.

The RM itself was then procedurally closed as moot because of the split outcome, rather than being evaluated substantively, but that discussion also attracted support for moving the article to Whatta Man, and some editors expressed a preference for that outcome over a split. My concern is therefore not simply disagreement with the split itself, but that the combined discussions may point toward a broader consensus that the whole article is primarily about Whatta Man, with the Linda Lyndell song as its precursor, rather than "split while retaining the existing title arrangement". I'm not sure the final result fully reflects that overall picture.

I suggested that the split and the RM could be combined into one, and I wonder whether a relist might be useful in order to fully assess the community's view on this, since there seem to be three possible outcomes under discussion: retaining the status quo, splitting the topics, or moving the article as a whole to Whatta Man. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Look I'll be the first to say that thing was a procedural mess (I actually went and got a second opinion before pulling the trigger), but there wasn't anyone in the RM who didn't comment in the split, and AfD is open for What a Man (song). I think, to avoid creating an even greater mess, the best thing to do would be to invite the people from the split discussion/requested move to discuss at the AfD whether or not What a Man (song) should be merged into Whatta Man.

Yes, it would end up being a very overcomplicated way of doing a move, but I think it works out. I think the best way this could have been handled was by an RM first, establishing that Whatta Man is the main subject of the article, and then after that a split discussion on whether or not What a Man (song) had enough notability to be a stand-alone article. If discussion is had at AfD the split discussion kind of ends up taking the place of the RM and the AfD the place of the split discussion. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 18:45, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not really sure I follow the logic here... Relists are cheap, whereas heading off to other venues to relitigate the discussion in reverse is just confusing. My suggestion is we relist both discussions, but fold the "split" discussion into the RM, then simply re-ping all the participants and get them to give a definitive view on which of the three options they prefer. In a week's time, I hope the consensus will be crystal clear, one way or the other. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:25, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

The AfD wasn't filed by me, you know, I don't see how I could justify shutting it down unless I genuinely believe I misjudged consensus or if community consensus establishes that I misjudged it, and I don't think I did. There wasn't really anybody responding to the RM in support of something they hadn't also voiced their support for in the split.

As I said, I agree this is messy, but I don't have much say in how editors decide to structure their discussions. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 22:57, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

@Maltazarian: I am simply asking you to revert the split and relist the discussion for another week, as is standard process. You were the admin who closed it, so I'm not sure why you say you "don't have much say" in the matter?... As I said above, I don't think consensus was at all clear in favour of a split, and the discussion would clearly benefit from all participants clearly stating which option they prefer. The AFD was made after the split occurred and would be procedurally closed as moot if the split/move discussions are reverted, since it pertains solely to the situation that exists after the contested split. Also, nobody has contributed at that AFD yet, apart from the nominator 162 etc. (who doesn't even favour deleting or merging the article anyway) so I don't see the harm and it can always be filed again if the outcome remains the same after a relist. Cheers.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

User:Amakuru, you've made your point, and this is bordering on badgering. User:Maltazarian has closed the discussion and has declined to reopen it; the best way forward is probably to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on from this. 162 etc. (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@162 etc.: I have made a simple request for the discussion to be relisted. Maltazarian has implied above that they're sympathetic to my request, but because of your AFD (which you opened despite not even supporting deletion in the first place), the situation has become difficult. Perhaps you could do the decent thing now and withdraw the AFD until next ewek so the split/RM can be relisted, instead of posting passive-aggressive messages to me? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@162 etc.: Apologies for the sharp tone in my previous reply, that was uncalled for - I'm letting procedural frustration get the better of me and I shouldn't have directed that at you. I've struck the above comment. Just to clarify my point though: standard practice is that relists are cheap and should usually be an uncontroversial way to ensure a solid consensus, more so than opening fresh discussions. The reason a routine relist is complicated here is because the AfD is standing in the way of it, so it would still be appreciated if you're able to reconsider that one temporarily. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

We are all here in good faith to help make this encyclopedia better. Thank you for your contributions.

I believe that User:Maltazarian's interpretation of the consensus is correct. The editors in the discussion agreed that Whatta Man is what's most notable here, and deserves a standalone article. If you wish to contribute further, the best place for that is at Talk:Whatta Man, and/or the "What a Man" AFD, not this talkpage. 162 etc. (talk) 18:32, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Good article nominations | June 2026 Backlog Drive
June 2026 Backlog Drive: Do you want to become more experienced in the GA process? On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles reviewed. Mentors are available, and new reviewers (<6 reviews) get bonus points! Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talk page.
You're receiving this message because you have participated in a good article review this year or participated in the previous backlog drive.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello Core Contest participants! There is less than one week left until the May 31 deadline (23:59 UTC), so it's time to ramp up our efforts. Remember, Wikipedia wants to be edited!

Now is a good time to set some final goals for your article: What section needs the most improvement? Which sources remain unused? How can you best spend your time? Good luck and happy editing! Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – Aza24 (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Leiocephalus lunatus, links pointing to the disambiguation pages Dorsal and Richard Thomas were added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, there is a move review underway relevant to a discussion you were recently involved in. Link above. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Maltazarian, FYI. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:12, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I think things are getting heated in part because of CPUSH issues on that page. A common reaction to CPUSH (and a pattern I have made the mistake of doing before) is to respond to CPUSH by becoming less civil as the CPUSH antics get increasingly frustrating. And this poisons the whole discussion because if someone comes in (like you) who has policy derived good-faith objections while the CPUSH is going on it's really easy to say "Oh god another one." And the CPUSH is bad enough there that there's an editor I've been toying with actually taking to AE. And I hate doing that. Like a lot. (The editor, in this case, is the one who promotes their race science blog as part of the associated AfD discussion. I've just about had it with that level of WP:PROFRINGE behaviour.) Anyway, thank you for being a reasonable and good faith participant in this discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm aware. It's a difficult thing to handle. You know, I'm not trying to be some sort of a defender for this Lasker guy, who I quite frankly couldn't care less about, which ironically enough is also my motivation to participate. Personally I do think he ran that Reddit account and I do think he is just another far-right pseudointellectual (and then some), but when the guy himself has come on here complaining I feel it's extra important to make sure our ducks are in a row with regards to neutrality and sourcing. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 16:23, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Until Katzrockso brought forward the Decoherence source I was against inclusion. I have spent a fair bit of time and attention at understanding far-right networks in Canada and the United States. There's complicated reasons for that but a lot of those boil down to having been a closeted bisexual goth more than 20 years ago in a town with an active skinhead movement that was trying to infiltrate the goth scene. I knew about O9A before most people even in left-wing fascism-watch spaces did, to my ongoing sorrow. I was already very familiar with Lasker when I saw noticeboard chatter about his page and had already read the Mother Jones piece which I personally think was good investigative reporting. But, yeah, as I was saying this isn't a Stonetoss situation where the subject is pseudonymous and there's a preponderance of sources calling him a Nazi. This is a living person named with his personal name and I agree we should be carefully attributing for "this is an encyclopedia" reasons. But, and I'm putting on my WP:EXPERT hat now, which comes with its perils, that Decoherence piece is pretty close to journalistic best-practice. One editor pointed out they had few articles and that's because they're doing data-driven journalism on sensitive topics where a lot of the subjects have no compunction about threatening journalists. They have a *lawyer* on their board of directors for very good reasons. It's entirely unsurprising they're slow to publish and that actually speaks toward their reliability. It reminds me a lot of the initial journalism on Moms for Liberty that ultimately led to academic work like this. Simonm223 (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

After typing this all out I realize I'm rambling a bit but uh I'm going to take your reply as an invitation (I usually cut stuff down after typing it out to be more concise, I ramble by nature).

Yeah I looked into Decoherence and, while prefacing this with the fact I'm leaning towards inclusion, I do think this is a genuinely difficult situation. Obviously the gut instinct is that he absolutely did that, but that's not much of an argument. MoJo is biased, but as I saw someone say in a recent discussion somewhere: biased sources are generally really dedicated to what they do. I think the example was something like the NRA obviously being biased on gun control but actually being a good source if you want to find out what the top arguments against gun control are, because you can be sure that they're going to have dug as deep as they can into finding them.

It's a similar situation here: yes, MoJo is biased, but ABC News or Reuters aren't going to do an investigative piece on some semi-obscure far-right pseudointellectual's Reddit affairs. It's the difficulty of weighing bias against reliability. That also goes for Decoherence. At first after I looked into it I said no way, it's a minor reference to MoJo in some outlet that barely has any coverage in other sources, is seemingly very new and appear to be little more than half a dozen people doing self-published doxxing pieces.That's a joke, to be clear. Obviously exposing extremists can't be summarized as "doxxing". Then I thought about it and realized these are probably the exact people I would ask about whether or not an investigative piece that exposes something about a far-right personality is legit. Are they biased? Yes, incredibly. Are they reliable in this situation? Likely also yes. I seriously doubt the people who do this for a living, in large part out of a genuine passion for it, would just "aggregate" an investigative piece like that.

With all of that said, while I think my reasoning is sound, it might be a little bit "out of bounds" so to speak (WP:OR). The fact their outlet is new means a valid point about WP:REPUTABLE could be raised in an RfC due to their very limited coverage in other sources. Yes, they claim to follow ethical praxis in their journalism, and while I don't see a reason to not believe them it is obviously also just a self-published source saying it is trustworthy. You absolutely can construct a valid argument that MoJo and Decoherence isn't enough for something as serious as those allegations are. Then again, it's an obscure personality, you can't expect ABC News or Reuters to show up and give it the golden stamp of approval of big media. It's a bit of a conundrum.

This is why I edit articles on turtles instead of BLPs. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 16:56, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

ROTFL BLP is one of my main beats and it's not an easy one. Even stuff about pop musicians and TV stars gets heated. You wouldn't believe the nonsense that is going on right now about Avril Lavigne. And I believe I also saw that discussion about bias and specialization. IIRC it was a thread I'd previously participated a lot in but was trying to disentangle myself with someone I had a poor opinion of and was going on "mostly read-only" mode. Simonm223 (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

To be fair, turtles aren't a cakewalk either. Or tortoises, rather. I was trying to destub Hood Island giant tortoise for the WP:DOTA challenge and found the part on physical characteristics had no citation, so I went to get a source. I didn't need much so I went for one of the many books with short outlines of all the turtles of the world, available on the Internet Archive's Open Library. Checked the entry on my tortoise; it was the exact text I was trying to find a source for.

The entire page history of Hood Island giant tortoise was contaminated by a copyvio. Turns out it had been created by copying material from List of subspecies of Galápagos tortoise, so nearly all of that page history was contaminated too. Ran WP:EARWIG on the latter and found a wholly separate copyvio that had been there since the creation of the article.. and that one even had a inline citation to the thing being copied added to it. Galápagos tortoise is a FA, but nobody noticed its sibling list having a major copyvio for 14 years straight.

If you check the page histories of those articles now there's nothing left to click. It's all gone. Turtle and tortoise articles are no joke I tell you. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 17:16, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Woof. Normally when I am hitting articles about animals on WP it's about birds (I keep chickens, guinea fowl and geese and make much use of associated pages as a reader). But copyvio is rough stuff to deal with. Simonm223 (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

The Core Contest has now ended! Thank you for your interest and efforts. Make sure that you include both a "start" and "improvement diff" on the entries page. The judges will begin delibertaing shortly and annouce the winners within the next few weeks. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – Aza24 (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

(I withdrew) ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 20:47, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

	Destubathon Barnstar
	Much appreciate your effort in the Wikipedia:Destubathon of the Americas contest! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:53, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld Thanks! Sorry for not submitting to the prizes tab to get the barnstar, but I'm waiting for a few more checkmarks. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 18:32, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

For my own record, I destubbed 64 articles, completing the challenge of destubbing an article each for 59 territorial entities.

List of the articles I destubbed:

⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 17:46, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

		The Mediator Barnstar
		In recognition of the amount of work you've put into mediating several discussions in such a highly contentious topic. Even if some disputes still inevitably boil over, I want you to be aware that your consistent endeavor to keep editors on track in building consensus is greatly appreciated. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Butterscotch, that means a lot to me because I do make a very conscious effort to do just that. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 22:12, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I was considering sending you a similar barnstar tbh. Thank you for what you do. Simonm223 (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Caecilia volcani

added a link pointing to Subterranean

Chaco side-necked turtle

added a link pointing to Iris

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Your closure is confusing, at it's unclear as to what the new title is. Can you change the bolded text to "Moved to 2026 Ebola epidemic" or something of the sort? Thanks, Feeglgeef (talk) 03:10, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Huh. That's a quirk with Move+, I don't know why it doesn't add anything to the close itself. It correctly documents it in the talk page banner, but doesn't mention it in the close. I think I remember seeing this happen before and editing it manually.

I will fix it of course. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 03:12, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Feeglgeef (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

What exactly happened? I apologize, but I'm confused. Why does Championnat National 3 redirect to Championnat National 1? Did you fix the links correctly? That is not right. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:19, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I forgot to change it to target Championnat National 2 after switching Championnat National 2 with Championnat National 1 and then Championnat National 2 (at that point a redirect to Championnat National 1) with Championnat National 3. I fixed it. The rest was alright. I am still fixing links that were going to Championnat National 2 that should now be targeted to Championnat National 1, which isn't as simple to fix. I'm using WP:AWB to do it but I've still got about 1,500 links to inspect to make sure they're going to the correct article. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 00:28, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Understood. Make sure you fix some of the redirects as well, like CFA 2 and Championnat de France Amateur 2, or Championnat de France Amateur. Last I checked those had issues too. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:30, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for letting me know. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 00:35, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

There's existing issues at Vitinha (footballer, born February 2000) and Rodney County, New Zealand as well following page moves you've done. Neither of these titles should be disambiguation pages. • Quinn (talk • it/its) 01:37, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

That's unrelated; they should have been swapped with Vitinha (disambiguation) and Rodney County (disambiguation) respectively after being swapped with their base names. I'm not sure why that didn't happen at the end. I can't remember quite frankly. Either I forgot or something about my swap procedure is off. I will have to be more careful with those types of double swaps going forward. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 03:10, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

(Also I've obviously gone and fixed it.) ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 03:11, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I think we need a series of sensible redirects, e.g. Championnat National 3 (1993–2026) → Championnat National 2 to reflect the old name and the new name, and then make changes like [[Championnat National 3]] → [[Championnat National 3 (1993–2026)|Championnat National 3]] (rather than [[Championnat National 2|Championnat National 3]] to avoid any confusion. Thoughts? GiantSnowman 11:07, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. I've finished most of the clean-up related to making sure wikilinks referring to the old Championnat National 2 are pointing to what is now Championnat National 1, which was the most urgent fix, but I'm certainly for doing what you suggested and also changing what is currently piped as Championnat National 1|Championnat National 2 to Championnat National 2 (1993–2026)|Championnat National 2 with Championnat National 2 (1993–2026) redirecting to Championnat National 1.

It won't take much work as I can be completely sure anything using the Championnat National 1|Championnat National 2 pipe needs to be changed, which wasn't the case for changing Championnat National 2 wikilinks, some of which had to be changed to outright Championnat National 1, such as a player article saying they play in that league, while others had to be piped because they were referring to the league when it was using the old name.. I had to check over 1,000 articles to see which one was which.

I will look into setting up WP:AWB to do it. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 11:22, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman Alright the 723 or so articles that contained [[Championnat National 1|Championnat National 2]] have been changed to instead have [[Championnat National 2 (1993–2026)|Championnat National 2]]. I don't see much need to do the same with Championnat National 3 because there is no new Championnat National 3 for it to be confused with. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 11:53, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

That deals with the new CN2 - what about CN1? GiantSnowman 17:56, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I mean the old one was simply called "Championnat National" instead of "Championnat National 1", so we don't have the same issue of there being a ton of links out there trying to get to one place but going to another as Championnat National is still a redirect to Ligue 3, but now that you say it I suppose it might be better for it to be a disambiguation page between Ligue 3, Championnat National 1 and Championnat National 2. Do you think we should turn it into a disambiguation page and replace links currently going to Championnat National with [[Championnat National (1993–2026)|Championnat National]]? I'm already going to have to clean up articles saying a player, manager or club "plays in Championnat National" to "plays in Ligue 3" and if you want to make a disambiguation I would be able to change the links alongside the clean-up. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 04:59, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for maintaining the parity between Template:Style and Template:Manual of Style when you BOLDly removed links to non-MOS stuff.

JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 15:22, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I actually made sure to do that because I read the edit logs first and saw your reasoning for adding some of them was to do that! If not for you, I wouldn't have thought of the navbar. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 20:36, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I wish I could do editnotices to make it more obvious. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 22:15, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Maltazarian,

I would like to know why the requested move discussion at Talk:New South Wales A and B sets#Requested move 1 June 2026 needed to be relisted rather than closed as not moved.

As far as I can tell, the discussion has a good amount of responses so consensus is present and the responses are unanimously against this proposal. Per WP:RMNOMIN, a requested move does not need any minimum participation. I fear that overusing the relisting mechanism is a violation of WP:NOTBUREAU, relisting doesn't attract further people than may have participated in the first place, it's just painful for me to see many more responses against this proposal that I strongly believed in.

Thank you for your consideration. Qwerty123M (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

My bad I was actually intending to just reply to the thread but out of reflex put it inside of a relisting message. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 04:30, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Pretty weak arguments for such a move. Why no relist? Srnec (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think the argument that Sex is ambiguous is weak. The opposing arguments were similarly just an assertion that it is the primary topic, and there was decent evidence in the form of incoming wikilinks, a good chunk of which were intending to go to Sexual intercourse, Human sexual activity or Human sexuality, and "Sex" is one of if not the most likely search term for the first two of those. One of the opposing !votes was based entirely on opposition to "Genetic sex" rather than "Biological sex", another one was opposing without a rationale and a third was opposing "Biological sex" on the basis that it just means "Sex", which is a bit weak as it doesn't really address the issue of ambiguity (a naturally disambiguated title is supposed to "mean the same thing" as the base name while removing ambiguity). ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 04:50, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

But which one of sex, sexual intercourse and human sexuality is non-biological? Your close was directionally correct, but it is very strange in an era where it seems every RM gets relisted at least once that this one does not, despite the fact that the title chosen was not the one proposed and there was a mix of support and oppose with very little real discussion. I think you should revert and relist. Srnec (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't see the point in reopening and relisting a requested move discussion just for the sake of doing so, and to do so when I believe there is a consensus would be to move against that consensus, which I don't think is justified. The exact reason I believe there is a consensus is as follows:

The nominator and 7 supporters were in favour, with 5 opposers. One opposing !vote did not directly address the PTOPIC question (a hatnote being able to handle confusion need not mean there is a PTOPIC, per WP:DABTWO, easily confused with WP:TWODABS) with the objection that the article isn't just about genetics addressed by participants favouring the alterative title "Biological sex". Another opposing !vote had neither its own rationale nor a reference to another reply's rationale. That leaves 8 against and 3 for there being a PTOPIC (taking "'biological sex' is just another term for 'sex'" to be a PTOPIC argument).

Google Scholar showing that most instances of the term "sex" was in reference to biological sex was brought up as an argument for there being a PTOPIC, with counterarguments being that it also showed the common name for sexual intercourse being "sex" and that, as a generalist encyclopedia, academic usage is not necessarily more important than layman usage, which is an argument supported by WP:PT1 (..much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. emphasis mine) WhatLinksHere, which had links going to "Sex" that were using the term in a variet of different senses, including biological sex, sexual intercourse, human sexual activity and human sexuality, was used to argue common usage of the term "Sex" is very ambiguous.

Considering the evidence and the relevant guidelines there is no clear strength of argument advantage for either side when it comes to whether or not there is a PTOPIC, and there is certainly not any clear violation of PaGs that prevents the supermajority in favour of there being no PTOPIC from establishing a consensus to that effect.

I'm willing to update the close rationale to include this more in-depth explanation, but I cannot in good faith unilaterally revert this close as I don't believe it was incorrect. If you believe it was incorrect then a move review is in order, which you are of course more than welcome to initiate. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 15:47, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I have taken it to MR. Srnec (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Got it, thanks for letting me know. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 00:27, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Generally the discussion was at a limbo as before today it had 2 people supporting it and 2 against it, but then another person had came today to support moving the page, will the page still be able to be moved despite it being beyond weeks from its deadline due to the limbo or will it stay the same as it is? Se7enand5 (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I had missed that article ending up in the backlog, there's been a high workload with few closers at RM in the past week or so. I will go take a look, but generally speaking a reply is a reply no matter how long a discussion has been open or been in the backlog, and counts towards consensus just like any other. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 22:00, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Hard close as is due to the fact there hasn't been a solid response to the WP:COMMONNAME argument, which isn't something that can be overruled by a numerical advantage alone, (see WP:NOTAVOTE) and a no consensus is going to leave a bunch of procedural questions about what title should be defaulted to. I'm just going to go ahead and join the discussion to try to break the stalemate, but that means that someone else will have to close it. Also, as the nominator you count as a vote so it was 3-2 before and 4-2 as it currently stands, prior to me joining the discussion. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 22:13, 11 June 2026 (UTC)