User talk:S Marshall

Quick facts

story · music · places

Close

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quick facts

story · music · places

Close

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

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

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

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

• ---->

  

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

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

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

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

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

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

  -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Hi David, and welcome to my talk page!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quick facts

story · music · places

Close

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

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

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

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

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

Quick facts

story · music · places

Close

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why don't we use <score>?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy New Year!

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

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

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

Quick facts

story · music · places

Close

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

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

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

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

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

Look for Wind of Change in music, and for vacation in places. The story is about a unique Bach cantata that relates to a current DYK nom. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:45, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

That article had definitely grown into an inconsistent state. In tracing the basis of this edit to decide what to do, what details are you seeing in this revision that indicate British-English? DMacks (talk) 13:51, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

• Only that Rcingham self-declares/self-declared as British.—S Marshall T/C 14:37, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

  I don't see anything like that in MOS:RETAIN. Looking at the actual contributions rather than the contributors, this edit is the first I see to introduce any ENGVAR ("catalyzed" rather than "catalysed"). Then this is the first non-stub version, and it does not deviate from that, until a few years later at this edit where the first British occurred ("behaviour"). DMacks (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

  I'm sorry for getting that wrong, and as far as I'm concerned you're welcome to change it to US English if you so wish.—S Marshall T/C 15:07, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

  No worries. Thanks for the quick replies! DMacks (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Hiya S Marshal, you're the first page mover I could think of. Could you take a look at the afd I've just created for List of fictional diseases, please? I missed out a 't' for the 4th nomination bit, and made a redirect, I just wondered if this would cause any issues? Ta. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional diseases (4th nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional diseases (4h nomination) Halbared (talk) 10:27, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

• Good morning. No, it shouldn't cause any issues. I've tagged the needless redirect for WP:CSD#R3 and I'd expect it to get deleted shortly. All the best—S Marshall T/C 10:34, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

  Brilliant, I now know for future use, thank you. :) Halbared (talk) 10:38, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Ancillary question. If I want to edit a redirect page (to go to another wholly different article), do I just simply edit it like a normal article page? Halbared (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes. The syntax is #REDIRECT[[Target article]].—S Marshall T/C 22:59, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Ace, ta.

Could you fix a title for me please? Posession (British TV series), I've missed an 's' from Possession. Halbared (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

With pleasure!—S Marshall T/C 17:16, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Halbared (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

It is I, Le Clare. Who can comment on Requests for arbitration? Halbared (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• Listen very carefully, I shall say zis only once. Anyone with an account can, but I'd heartily recommend the most circumspect and cautious choice of words possible.—S Marshall T/C 16:35, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Calling EEng a "hoarder" is a bit dramatic and over the top. I have got into several disputes with the man, and even I'm not willing to go that far. It's also weird to me that you are profiling people based on how they maintain their talk page. There are numerous other explanations that fit. For example, I think it's far more likely that he's lonely and looking at all the talk page messages gives him some measure of comfort. No hoarding required. Viriditas (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

• In the context of EEng's long-standing refusal to archive his talk page, making EEng's the largest and slowest-loading user talk page on Wikipedia, and in the context of drama started by others who archived EEng's talk page for him, and in the context that I called that action an unwarranted intrusion on EEng's user space at the DRV and I endorsed the reversal of that action, I later went on to say:

  ...We need volunteers to have the behaviours that make the software work. EEng doesn't. It's got a lot in common with hoarding: begins with a disinclination to get rid of old rubbish, but over time it evolves into a situation where the neighbours are complaining about the smell and the postman can't force any more mail into the overstuffed letterbox.

  Viriditas, you've earned my respect with a lot of well-thought-out comments over the years, so I wouldn't lightly dismiss what you say. I will reflect on what you have just said to me.
  EEng's constant trolling puts my teeth on edge. I think EEng thinks he's extremely funny and clever, and I sharply disagree. Perhaps I have let my personal dislike for the man push me over the edge into overdramatising.
  I do maintain that EEng's refusal to archive his talk page is best seen as a user problem, not a software problem or a policy problem.—S Marshall T/C 00:00, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

  I am admittedly slightly biased. I have a known affinity for people who buck the system and do things their own way, many of whom have been blocked on this site. EEng is one of these, and while we might not agree on everything, I sleep better at night knowing there are people like him out there. Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

  I'm stuck on the fact that there's 8 megabytes of html on that talk page.—S Marshall T/C 23:45, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

  I mean, it doesn't bother me, except that is difficult to use the "reply" function, if not impossible. As I said before, adding a new comment and editing a section appears to work fine. A new software feature that automatically adds section breaks after x amount of discussion would help. Viriditas (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

  I understand, and it doesn't really "bother" me either, in the sense that it has no effect on me personally. I don't recall ever posting there and I don't anticipate ever needing to. And if I did, I'm a lucky bloke who lives in a Western democracy and gets to edit from a desktop on a dual-monitor workstation with a nerd-grade specification, over a nerd-grade connection. I'm getting 122.67 Mbps at the moment, which is low for me (I get more when family members aren't watching digital video).

  But we do have volunteers who use mobile phones from the third world.—S Marshall T/C 00:02, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

  Good point. I'm at 725.74 Mbps, which is why I don't have a problem. Viriditas (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Quick facts

story · music · places

Close

From vacation, so missed some interesting stories, such as about Jubilant Sykes. Today about Richie Beirach, jazz pianist. Which of his music samples would you have chosen? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:26, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Tamás Vásáry today, who began his career with a Mozart concerto at age 8. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Today something new: a 100th birthday of someone alive, György Kurtág! In 2004 I was there when he and his wife played for the Rheingau Musik Festival where he was the featured composer. They played as the 2019 DYK said, on an upright piano, - listen, the last piece was the same. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Today's main page features four biographies I helped to bring there, two women and two men, three opera singers (one pictured) and an actor, - a record for me, I believe ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Marshall. You closed this page: Talk:Gaza genocide#RfC: Wikivoice in lead after most discussion on the topic has not been active for a few months with the reasoning being I'm summarily closing this as a duplicate, redundant RfC. If there is a second RfC exactly like this, could you link to it in your closure message? If not, then I think the closure was premature due to moratorium proposals still ongoing. Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

• The community is tired of repeated discussions about whether there is genocide in Gaza. It's not premature for a close, and I won't reopen it.—S Marshall T/C 20:19, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

  It seems you have misunderstood what I said.

  The first point was about being a duplicate RfC, which seems to imply there is a second one, which I asked you to link to.

  The other point was that there were ongoing moratorium requests: the goal of a moratorium is to prevent farther discussion until farther evidence: you said The community is tired of repeated discussions about whether there is genocide in Gaza. a moratorium would help with this.

  Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

  I think it's you who misunderstands.

  As I've said, it duplicates the many previous discussions about whether there's genocide in Gaza.

  It might be about a slightly different facet of that discussion, but no, that doesn't mean I will reopen it.

  I'm personally willing to summarily close any further discussions about whether there's genocide in Gaza. This is a commitment that lasts until a significant new source emerges, a significant new event takes place, or the ICJ makes a ruling.—S Marshall T/C 20:37, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

  1. I get the duplicate thing. Although you might want to consider clarifying that in your close, unless you think other people will understand it.

  2. Wouldn't a moratorium help you out with summarily closing farther discussions, as you can then have your justification for the closings be de jure rather than just de facto, which will help you deal with other people challenging your closing, and prevent other people from re-opening these discussions in the first place?

  Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

  I feel as if the community is with me on summarily closing further discussions, which is what gives me confidence to say what I did. But if you would like to propose a moratorium as a clean, separate discussion, I wouldn't stop you.—S Marshall T/C 20:58, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Minor thing, but it might be helpful to some readers if you mention in the closing comment what the status quo is. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:35, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

• I've added an addendum.—S Marshall T/C 13:48, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I don’t think we’ve ever interacted, but I saw your comments on the baby globe fiasco (hey, it could be worse; it could also play the theme from “Baby Shark”!) and checked you out. I enjoyed reading your user page, I chuckled at it, and found myself nodding my head at your comments about how you personally have benefitted from being a Wikipedia editor, in terms of personal growth. Like you, I have also learnt a lot from my time here. Long may it continue for both of us! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

• Thank you. Welcome to my talk page!—S Marshall T/C 17:50, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Quick facts

story · music · places

Close

Of the four topics I helped to bring to the main page, I'm most proud of a woman's work, so made it my story. As it happens, last year's story OTD was about the woman. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

on Bach's birthday, a story about my joy --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

more Bach in story and music on Palm Sunday, imagine: four Easter cantatas in today's concert, and more places in Cyprus! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

I saw a link to your RFC close back in December again. It reminded me of the rules on images, which are: "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter". WP:PERTINENCE and MOS:IMAGEQUALITY and MOS:LEADIMAGE add more, but we have relatively few "rules", especially of the sort that can be applied in a judgement-free fashion.

Do you have any suggestions for factors that could be useful and perhaps even semi-objective? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

• Good morning WAID, and thank you for visiting my talk page!

I do not feel strongly about images or infoboxes and am very open to arguments on either side. But you asked for my opinion, so to the limited extent that I have one, here it is:

I think one thing that's common to images and infoboxes is that their usefulness varies from reader to reader.

I think I'm like most other Wikipedians in being a fluent reader of written English. For such Wikipedians, reading is easy and often pleasant. I find information easiest to take in when that information is set out in straightforward, orderly paragraphs of written text. Therefore, I think that articles should be made of straightforward, orderly paragraphs of written text.

For me personally, infoboxes are needless, distracting, and dramagenic. I find images helpful where they're charts, graphs, maps or plans. I don't need photographs and I find arguments about which photograph to use boring.

But I'm not writing articles for me. I'm writing articles for the general public.

My mother, who is a retired lecturer and teacher, taught me a lot about this in my formative years. She told me that some people are visual learners and they can absorb far more information from images and tables and bulleted lists. She told me that our education system is biased against them. (This was the 1980s). She told me that people who're fluent readers who enjoy reading and can learn from books have a colossal advantage and usually emerge from school with good grades and socially deemed the best and brightest of their class. As the socially-deemed best and brightest, they then get to write the books on which the next generation are educated. They choose the style that was most effective for them, and thus the text-primacy approach is perpetuated, potentially forever.

From her, I learned that things like images and infoboxes help other people a lot more than they help me. I know that an image that doesn't help me, helps other people. They expect images, and having the right image displayed reassures them that they're on the right page. For such people, reading is work, and they want that reassurance before starting it.

I'm fortunate enough to be a Western European man who gets to edit from a nerd-grade computer with a dual monitor setup, and my glasses give me excellent visual acuity so I need neither a screen reader nor an enlarged font. Therefore, for me, an infobox doesn't overwhelm the rest of the article. But sometimes I read Wikipedia and occasionally try to edit it from a phone, and I know how much premium screen estate the infobox can take up.

From this I derive the following principles which I would propose rather tentatively:

a) Where there's dispute about whether to have an infobox, and no consensus exists, we should default to including one. Even where it seems needless to S Marshall.

b) Where there's dispute about whether to have a lead image, and no consensus exists, we should default to including one. Even where the image seems needless to S Marshall.

c) Infoboxes should have a maximum rendered size on the page.

d) Where there's dispute about whether to use an infobox parameter, and no consensus exists, we should default to leaving it out.

e) For mobile users, the first element of any infobox that displays should be a "skip to text" link that takes them directly to the prose without them having to scroll for several aeons to get there.—S Marshall T/C 09:38, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I saw the header and became curious. Talking about the topic, what do you think about Cosima Wagner, - putting considerations about criteria to a test? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for asking me this. For record purposes I want to say that Gerda asked this while I was composing the reply above, so she hadn't seen my reply when she asked the question.

I think that following the principles I've just tentatively proposed, that article might benefit from a short infobox with only carefully-selected parameters populated.—S Marshall T/C 09:40, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Wow for your response which indeed I had not seen, and have no time to study now. I think what you said last, "a short infobox with only carefully-selected parameters populated", is true for any biography (perhaps with the exception of the few FAs by confessing infobox-dislikers). You seem not to have seen that I had thought the same, and gave her one. Her husband has an infobox, having caused much controversy in 2013 (when I suggested to have one on the talk page (!) on his bicentenary), but acceptance has changed since, - see Mozart. Her father, first husband and children have one, - why not she? My version was reverted, and now there's a discussion on the talk which I have watched for several days, admiring both who argue for their patience and persistence. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:27, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I had now time to read, and think that your mother taught you good things, and the best was that something can be wanted even if S Marshall and Gerda Arendt don't need it. If you could teach this bit to a few users - not even five is my guess - I believe we could call the infobox disputes over. We have visually impaired readers. We have readers coming from other languages because detailed articles exist in English but not their language. Today, a friend added an image to Maria Friesenhausen: it adds so much life to the written stuff, like meeting a person to whom you only talked on the phone. The other day, I wanted to write about a composition, and was so pleased to find a useful page that I'd call an infobox on the composer's website. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:06, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I always use an infobox when I create articles. For a start, the infobox parameters are a useful checklist for me, so that I don't miss out important elements. A lot of us out here have memory issues, you know ... I also have eyesight issues, and I promise you it really is helpful to check out the infobox before struggling to squint through a long article. I appreciate that some content creators who are the main contributors to their creations don't like infoboxes for aesthetic reasons, or privacy of a living subject, or whatever, and that's up to them – I would not want to interfere with that. But when an article is a household-name subject with lots of contributors to the page, then surely it's OK to have an infobox for that widely-shared page? Just my opinion. Storye book (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Quick summary of the above points:

• Infoboxes help readers for whom reading is difficult (dyslexia, vision problems, etc.)
• Infoboxes help readers with limited English proficiency
• Infoboxes (and infographics and all similar things on all websites) are preferred by readers with a visual learning style.

Based on this, I wonder what you all think about these two statements:

• If the article is popular (and thus we get more readers with reading difficulties), there should probably be an infobox.
• If the article has significant WP:TIES to a non-English speaking country (and thus we get a greater proportion of readers with limited English proficiency), there should probably be an infobox.

Do those sound approximately fair?

(The 'skip to next' idea is a good one, and I encourage you to post it at Template talk:Infobox. It could be made visible only on the mobile site and either be a collapse button or skip to an invisible anchor the end of the infobox. An alternative to this is to split longer infoboxes; imagine if Template:Chembox put the "Properties" section in the Formic acid#Properties section, "Identifiers" in ==External links==, etc.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

• I'm leery of anything so general as "if an article is popular, there should probably be an infobox". As I discuss this with you more, I come to realise that I feel that the value of an infobox varies from topic area to topic area.

For example, I think most articles about chemical elements and compounds should have infoboxes. There are lots of uncontroversial, short, facts and figures about chemical elements and compounds that fit neatly into infoboxes, and those facts and figures are very important facets of the topic.

Most articles about mathematical equations and formulae should not have infoboxes. There aren't many uncontroversial, short, facts and figures about them and where those facts and figures do exist (e.g. discoverer name, year of discovery), they aren't important facets of the topic.

All the articles about the diatonic keys should have infoboxes that list the relative keys and all the notes and chords that are in the scale. In some cases such an infobox would contain all the information that matters (Lydian sharp 2!)

Few of our articles about Shakespeare's plays should have infoboxes. There aren't many uncontroversial, short, facts and figures about them that aren't 100% redundant to the first paragraph of the decently-written lede.

I'm reluctant to visit Template talk:Infobox to propose an edit that would affect so many infoboxes. There are a lot of RfCs about infoboxes, some are acrimonious, and a shortage of people who have the experience/social capital to close them and who can credibly say they're uninvolved with infoboxes and don't have strong opinions about them. I feel that within certain limits, I'm one of those people, and I'd like to preserve that; but I have no objection to someone else proposing the idea.—S Marshall T/C 00:44, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

That suggests another criteria that editors might use:

• If the subject has few basic facts that are uncontroversial and short, then there should probably not be an infobox.

I clicked through the articles on all 17 of Shakespeare's comedies. It's 60:40 against having an infobox.

Mathematics articles like Quadratic equation are a good example of topics for which an infobox is not likely to be relevant or appropriate. Chemical compounds are a good example of topics for which an infobox is normal.

I don't think that being "100% redundant to the first paragraph" is considered a problem, especially for editors who are thinking about readers who struggle to read paragraphs of text. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:26, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

This also suggests a principle about which infobox parameters to populate. If the parameter could be populated with a short, relevant and uncontroversial fact, then it may be populated. If the fact is controversial, disputed, long, or of tangential relevance, it should not be.—S Marshall T/C 08:34, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Johnbod is likely to have useful thoughts.—S Marshall T/C 08:39, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

• Thanks! I usually refer to the thoughts I expressed in 2018, which still seem true to me: "..I think this is wrong for various reasons - point 3 perhaps being the key. As the expanding section above demonstrates, there are types of articles where we normally have infoboxes, and types where we don't. There is absolutely no evidence that "there is a certain expectation on the part of readers" that all articles should have one, nor do I believe this is the case. The great majority of article types fall fairly neatly into one group or the other, but some types, for various reasons, get caught in the middle, and it is here that disputes are concentrated. The articles suited to infoboxes are about discrete things, whether people, places, taxa, events etc, where the important things to know about the subject are a) the same for other members of that class of thing, b) objective facts that are straightforward to verify, and c) clear and easy to state. The types of articles not suited to infoboxes are those where any of these three factors is not the case, which includes most articles on broader topics and concepts, but also some on things (like people of certain types). It is a particular feature of WP, considered as an encyclopaedia, that we are very strong on the former type, "thing" articles, of which we have vast numbers, but often very weak on articles on topics (many very obvious ones are completely missing) and concepts. Therefore most articles do indeed have infoboxes, but to conclude from this that all articles usefully can do so is an optical illusion. Mind you, busy editors who don't like researching and writing actual content (who increasingly seem to be the majority here) have typically filled up many sorts of non-infobox articles with other types of templates of the navbox or timeline sort. There are many good points made in your essay though. Johnbod (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)" Johnbod (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  I just clicked Special:Random ten times. Nine of them had an infobox. (Stereotype content model did not.) While I think that overstates the prevalence of infoboxes (I'd estimate that the true prevalence is about three-quarters of articles), if readers aren't expecting to see them, then they haven't been paying attention.

  I agree that some articles shouldn't have an infobox. I have no idea what type of infobox could be put on Kindness, and even if we found one, what would we put inside it? Kindness is, um, a behavior. A virtue. And not exactly an emotion, despite the sidebar navbox there.

  My hope right now is to assemble a list of qualities editors could consider. Imagine a sort of checklist, only instead of saying "Is it cited? Is it grammatically correct? Does it contain puffery or advertising content?", the checklist sounds like "Is it a discrete thing, such as a person, place, taxon, event, etc., or is it a general concept, such as Virtue or People? Are there uncontroversial, basic facts that can be communicated clearly in a few words, like when someone was born?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  Even birthdates, which might seem so concrete and always-pertinent, need thinking about. Publishing someone's date of birth---well, if they're a living person, it isn't always welcome and in some cases could infringe their privacy. If they're a historical person, the accuracy with which their birthdate is known might be fuzzy. This rabbit hole looks deeper the more I look at it.—S Marshall T/C 18:51, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  Birthdates, as anything else, should only be in an infobox if known and with a reliable source. There is none for Beethoven and Verdi. - Back to what your mother taught you: if you could teach SchroCat to accept that the community has supported an infobox for Beethoven in 2015 and for Mozart in 2025, he could deal with arbcom. I can't tell him, I am not welcome on his talk. Today's FA is about a ritualistic reconciliation, but we need a real one for the infoboxes. I doubt that arbitration can help. Brian Boulton went for compromise in 2013. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:19, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

  I've written this up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Criteria for adding an infobox. Please feel free to join the discussion there so we don't keep lighting up S Marshall's notifications. It's too soon for an RFC, but hopefully we'll produce a proposal that's worthy of one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

• All of you are welcome to light up my notifications! But I agree that that's a better venue.—S Marshall T/C 17:51, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

You wrote: Is it possible for an editor to be so provoked that a modicum of incivility on their part could be overlooked? I think that's the defining question for this case. Yes, or is it possible for an editor to be so esteemed that incivility on their part is overlooked. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:11, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

The difference between this case and the Maghreb case seems to whether the editor has a fan club. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:11, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

• I see fewer parallels. Although SchroCat and M.Bitton are both tetchy editors, I think Dronebogus has been harassing SchroCat for years, in ways that M.Bitton has not been asked to endure. One of the challenges with Dronebogus is that he's so completely self-centred that he (imo quite genuinely) can't see how his behaviour affects others.

I think SchroCat replies to people when he ought to hold his tongue. M.Bitton on the other hand holds his tongue when it would be best if he talked. Bitton has the art of strategically ignoring things he finds inconvenient. If SchroCat had the same artifice, he wouldn't be at Arbcom.—S Marshall T/C 20:18, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

What I meant is that SchroCat has a fan club and Bitton does not.

That is an interesting comparison.

I have not been following any baiting or harassment of SchroCat, and will take your word for it, and agree that any editors who have been provoking a bear should be sanctioned when the bear is sanctioned. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:28, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Dronebogus will say that he didn't mean to harass SchroCat and he doesn't think he did harass SchroCat. This is likely an accurate statement of what Dronebogus thinks. But I think SchroCat felt harassed and understandably so.—S Marshall T/C 00:41, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Did you look at Talk:Erik Satie, or my questions to SchroCat on the case request? SchroCat wasn't the one who reverted, but the one who introduced - by his first edit to a discussion that was about a year old - a new tone: "Oppose IB for all the usual reasons I've mentioned before. The suggested one seems to be adding one purely for the sake of having one, or having one in order to wait a short spell to bloat out with idiotic rubbish." (.... which is carefully worded, I admit, - no editor was named idiotic, and not even the presented short infobox). - An RfC followed on the spot, - that's what I see. - Imagine if nobody had reverted ... - then we could say the last RfC on a composer infobox was in 2024. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:50, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes. I see that discussion as quite a personalized one, a skirmish in the ongoing dispute between Dronebogus and SchroCat.—S Marshall T/C 13:07, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

You mean between the community (represented by those who approved Dronebogus's addition, which includes me) and SchroCat? Satie isn't one of the FA articles "shepherded" by authors who invested a lot of energy and time. Just a vital article (then) on its way to a centenary, so watched by more than normally, 67% of the content written by Francis Schonken (banned), 10% by Tim Riley, never edited by SchroCat. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

You didn't hear me ;) - look at new places if you like, and today's concert was brilliant! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

The box at the top of your user page breaks down on mobile: your name and the numbers of DYKs/GAs are all stacked on top of each other. Amberkitten (talk) 02:45, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

• Thank you. I will get around to fixing that at some point.—S Marshall T/C 08:36, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi S Marshall, Just picking up on your comment on ArbCom about "without sanction for others". What others? The "evidence" I've seen from GLL is a bag of untruths and bad faith. Firstly there is no tag teaming; I have commented on articles which I on my watchlist: that's not tagteaming, because tagteaming needs coordination. No-one has shown any evidence of coordination - and they won't, because there isn't any. I looked at the diffs and GLL's terribly loaded language about the ones that looked at my comments and saw something that doesn't approach a suitable level of truthfulness:

I didn't bother to look at the rest of the diffs there's too little truth in both the diffs and 'explanations' to take any of it seriously. It's disappointing to see others, including one of the Arbs, seem to have swallowed this BS completely without actually looking at the veracity of the "evidence". - SchroCat (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

• I specifically mean that I don't want to see this end without sanction for Dronebogus.—S Marshall T/C 18:41, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

  I see: that bit wasn’t clear in the comment. Regarding DB, I have asked for a one-way IBAN a couple of times now. I don’t follow him around and have no desire to interact with him, so that would be an ideal outcome. Aside from that I don’t have any particular desire to see even him punished. There agin, I don’t hang around ANI, so I don’t know much else about him or his activities and whether they are sanctionable. - SchroCat (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

You recently commented on an arbitration case request about SchroCat. The Committee has accepted the request, and the case is now open at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchroCat, and edits to the evidence and workshop subpages are being accepted. The evidence phase closes on April 15, 2026 at 23:59 UTC. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 10:42, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Quick facts

story · music · places

Close

Happy Easter! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to talk with you about this "instigating the conflict" in the infobox matters. The background is that back in 2023, there was an RfC about Mozart which was well attended and resulted in a close in favour of a short infobox. If you ask me, all arguments were on the table in that RfC, and the question is whether specific FAs by a handful of high-class editors should be different. Perhaps we could imagine something like a nature preserve: "keep this article infobox-free for respect of its authors' preferences". Without that, the difference will be noticed, and readers and editors will ask why, - with DB or without.

To be less general, let's look at Erik Satie, the last RfC about a classical composer I recall, closed March 2025. They became that rare, and this one seemed so unneeded. It's not one of the FAs of the handful of editors. (All recent FAs about composers have an infobox, btw, see Stravinsky, Carl Nielsen, Osbert Parsley, Artemy Vedel, Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji.) SchroCat made his first edit on the talk (none to the article): "Oppose IB for all the usual reasons I've mentioned before. The suggested one seems to be adding one purely for the sake of having one, or having one in order to wait a short spell to bloat out with idiotic rubbish." DB initiated a RfC the same day. Who instigated? Please investigate the context, as WhatamIdoing did. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:28, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

• Who indeed? Was it Dronebogus for starting an infobox RfC about an article he'd barely edited, or was it SchroCat for being aggressive about an infobox in an article he'd barely edited?

I think they're both at fault. And I think the way to minimize the disruption to the encyclopaedia is for both Dronebogus and SchroCat to get a system of bans that (a) stop them from fighting about infoboxes, and (b) stop them interacting with each other.

Arguably SchroCat might get an exemption allowing him one !vote of up to 50 words in discussions about articles he's worked hard on. I've proposed both options and am relaxed about which (if either) Arbcom choose.

I hope WAID's attempt to build a guideline about infoboxes succeeds.—S Marshall T/C 16:33, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Did you see my proposal (which I made first in the case request and then in the workshop)? Did you see in the history (or in Whatamidoing's summary) how many infoboxes by how many different editors were reverted? Imagine no revert ;) - More tomorrow, it's Sunday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Well, yes, if people stopped reverting the addition of infoboxes, then there would be infoboxes everywhere and peace would reign, at least on that score.  :)—S Marshall T/C 22:58, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I wanted to run something by you:

It's my impression that if an infobox gets added to an article, that the disputes usually seem to stop, but that if an infobox is rejected, it might end up with repeated discussions until one is added. This could look like a new RFC ending in "no thanks" every couple of years until finally the result is "okay I guess", at which point the dispute is settled. There may be sub-disputes, e.g., at Mozart about what to put in the infobox, but there are normally no more disputes about whether to have an infobox. Infobox exclusion is either obviously correct (e.g., nobody ever tries to add one to the List of mathematical constants) or contested; infobox inclusion is stable.

Does that sound about right to you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:21, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes. Infobox colonization is like Russia: Israel: it takes territory at any cost and doesn't yield it. The opposition is like Ukraine: Gaza: fighting a rearguard action, badly outnumbered, expecting to sacrifice any space they lose.

What I've noticed about infoboxes is that at least a third of arguments that end up as RFCs concern disputed infobox parameters, which don't handle nuance well. I think the community needs a "when to add an infobox" rule, and also a rule about infobox parameters that says "disputed infobox parameters should either be left blank or read 'see text' with a link to a relevant paragraph of text".

I think a lot of the dislike of infoboxes relates to an aversion to editors' tendency to want to populate every parameter.—S Marshall T/C 07:46, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

To compare infoboxes to Russia hurts. The "colonization" is not for territory, but for accessibility, for the vision-impaired, foreigners ... as we discussed. Did you read my evidence that was reverted, as nothing "against" a party? The peace I dream of would mean that SchroCat, Tim riley, Ssilvers and Nikkimaria accept that a short infobox is not detrimental to article quality and means simply additional service for some readers. Can you do anything to achieve that? - Background: Handel's Messiah is on the main page today. Brian Boulton and Tim riley invited me to join the FAC nomination, my greatest honour to date. Brian worked for compromise as soon as the infobox arbcase was ended (for operas even before), - that is what we should go for. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:00, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I do understand that there are many benefits of infoboxes, and I can see why people use them. I think that whether we should "accept that a short infobox is not detrimental to article quality" depends on the article in question. With composers, for example, I agree that Handel should have an infobox (and he does), and I feel that Clement Robinson shouldn't (and he doesn't).—S Marshall T/C 12:02, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

You seem not to understand how hurtful the territory analogy is. I wrote with others Prayer for Ukraine in 2022. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:26, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

OK, I've changed it.—S Marshall T/C 12:28, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Sigh. I don't think you understood - any analogy of territory fights seems not adequate to me. I'll try a different one: several entrances to a building, one for the handicapped, - should that be permitted to be built even if the architect objects to a ramp for aesthetic reason? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Not if the architect objects to a ramp for aesthetic reasons, no: I'd agree that was inappropriate. But if the architect objects to a ramp because the proposed ramp would block the pavement outside, then yes.—S Marshall T/C 13:56, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes. No to still have an analogy of territory. From day two I knew about infobox disputes (2012, Samuel Barber, Talk:Samuel Barber/Archive 2, 11 April 2012) I have not understood how an additional access - taking nothing away from the main access through the lead ("block pavement") can cause so much emotion as it did. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Which is interesting because personally, I have no trouble understanding the concerns and objections.—S Marshall T/C 14:31, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

... which is why I believe you would make a good mediator, - it takes someone who has no trouble understanding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

It's possible that an infobox would be distracting to some readers. There's a thing in computer-based standardized tests that avoids parallel columns. (I need to find some good sources on accessibility technology for that article.) Imagine that the usual page is something like:

| reading || question |
| passage ||          |

and if the student has difficulty focusing on the text, they can change the display to do this:

----
reading passage
----
question
----

So perhaps, in theory, an infobox could be distracting to some on the desktop site. Similarly, without being able to collapse an infobox, then someone who has physical disabilities might find it awkward to have to scroll past a long infobox on mobile.

I'm just speculating about this, but every time I hear about ramps producing accessibility, I think of a lawyer I know, who has a mobility disability and yet prefers the stairs to long, winding ramps. You can best accommodate her own disability with the shortest possible path, but only the long, winding wheelchair ramps are required. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Accepted, it's another analogy that doesn't fit exactly, but the territory analogy hurts, no matter if Ukraine or Gaza. I said today: "I see no conflict if we could agree that it is the job of the infobox to provide easy access at a glance to facts such as place of death and children (which would clutter the lead), and the job of the lead to add nuance and expression, and that they can coexist." I also said that the last infobox discussion between SC and DB was more than a year ago, and the topic is thus overemphasized in the arbcase. I am used to people not listening to me ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

ok, I overlooked the Ziegler sisters: firstly they are not topics I care about and secondly: have you heard that infoboxes for singers, actresses, dancers ... are contentious? They don't belong to the liberal arts, afaik ;) - Have you reflected in how many RfCs by Dronebogus the consensus was with him? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that, but I still think Dronebogus' behaviour has been absolutely atrocious. He isn't just making the case for infoboxes on talk pages; if that was what he did, it would be fine. But DB targets particular people he dislikes and starts infobox-related discussions on articles they're passionate about. He starts RFCs about articles he's never edited and doesn't care about. He's stalking people and he's doing it deliberately. It's creepy and wildly inappropriate and the whole topic area would be massively improved by Dronebogus' absence.—S Marshall T/C 21:57, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Can you try to see that from the other side? Something like "Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes/Archive 21 would have massively improved by SchroCat's absence, and the whole problem had gone away". Not my view, but a view I'd understand. I experienced myself how frustrating it is to argue with people who make you feel their superiority. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

I do see that, and that's why I've specifically asked Arbcom to topic ban both SC and DB from infoboxes.—S Marshall T/C 11:03, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Comment(?) on a close you made months ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:15, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

• I wonder what drives Polygnotus's fear and loathing of RFCs.—S Marshall T/C 07:48, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

  Maybe you should ask. I even offer the option to talk via IRC, if you prefer. I don't guarantee that you will fully agree with me, but at least you'll understand. Polygnotus (talk) 07:47, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  What drives your fear and loathing of RFCs?—S Marshall T/C 08:26, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  I made the mistake of going through the archives and reading a lot of RfCs. I used Java code to make lists of them and get some metadata like the amount of respondents, the amount of signatures per respondent, if they were closed. Then I played around with the RfC Monitor and RFCTracker scripts in Javascript.

  I mostly focused on those where I felt I would be able to form an opinion within a reasonable timeframe.

  I also wrote some Java code that uses AI to help me see how a PaG page has evolved over time.

  I try to avoid the PaG debates because they are rarely fun and constructive, but the recent changes to make RfCs unstoppable weapons has the potential to do very very serious damage to Wikipedia.

  There is a reason Wikipedia is not based on voting. Changing from discussion as a way to determine consensus to RfCs is a truly terrible idea.

  The only truly scarce resource we have is volunteer time. And RfCs burn through it fast, and most could've been avoided or are pointless. They are a force multiplier for POV pushers, idiots and misguided newbies who are wasting everyone's time. An RfC is a sledgehammer, you shouldn't start big. Normally you have a conversation and if that doesn't work you do 3O and if that doesn't work you ask a WikiProject or an expert and if that doesn't work you might start an RfC. So you start small and scale up. We also wouldn't allow people to ping 20 people for every discussion, why would we allow it for an RfC?

  Opening statements of RfCs are often biased or present false dichotomies. The person who starts the RfC has a major advantage; they get to frame the debate and choose which options and evidence to present, and they get to post the first !vote. The opening post is usually a wall of text. Those who come later are at a serious disadvantage because many people read the opening post, skip or skim the rest and post their !vote.

  Preset bolded answers push people toward voting. See anchoring effect, framing effect, compromise effect and the primacy effect et cetera. Marketeers have successfully exploited our predictable irrationality for a long time.

  By separating votes from discussion, and separating Support from Oppose sections, you can make it even worse because people will form opinions before reading the other side.

  If you've read all the Supports (and agreed with at least some of what they said), the Opposes will really have to work hard to convince you.

  Freeform discussions produce a stronger consensus. An RfC that is nothing but a topic header with no preset answer options and a brief neutral statement would be fairer. A side by side format with one side arguing pro and another arguing con would be better than what we have now, and would require RfCs to be based on an actual disagreement (often RfCs get started in cases where no one has actually expressed disagreement).

  Lets say someone starts an RfC saying "Should political party Y be described as radical left, left, center, right, radical right".

  See how they sneakily turned what should've been a discussion about reliable sources into a discussion about the personal feelings of the participants in the RfC? It may have been a complete accident, and 99% of Wikipedians would not call them out on it.

  Often the person who starts the RfC does not even fully understand the topic or its history, or they are pushing a POV. POV pushers try to wear people down, and RfCs are the perfect tool for that. Someone who defends an article against POV pushers and goes on holiday for 4 weeks can return to find multiple new "consensuses" they are expected to accept. A lot of people are simply unable to write a good and neutral RfC, even if they have that intention. People have a blind spot for their own biases and don't think critically about framing.

  Whoever has the most socks and meatpuppets wins any vote or !vote. Wikipedians (and humans) are herd animals, few people are unaffected by what (appears to be) a majority voting a certain way. People assume that if many people choose an option that its probably the best one. And its easier to pile on than to actually dig up diffs and read through archives.

  Wikipedia is actually one of the few places where the strength of your arguments matter, and its not just how sycophantic you are, or how patient you are, or how many sock puppets you create. One or two editors can block the efforts of a much larger group of meat- and sock puppets. But the recent changes to make RfCs unstoppable weapons of mass destruction which cannot be countered shifts this delicate balance. A lot of time the best response to an RfC is "lets stop or pause this for now because you aren't asking the right question in the right way". In such cases we need to be able to remove the template and let the discussion continue. This flexibility is not a problem, it is the solution to a problem.

  An RfC is just a template to attract the attention of others. It should not give whoever uses it first a huge advantage.

  Dumb people think they are invulnerable to marketing and psychological tricks. Smart people know how dangerous biases can be and how easy it is to manipulate people. A decent magician can confuse and fool even the smartest people. Any pollster knows how subtle changes in the wording of a question are what determine the outcome, so they can always come up with the result their customer wants or needs. And because you allow swearing on this talkpage I would like to add the word "fuck". Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 09:31, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  Also check out my excellent examples over at User:Polygnotus/RFC. Polygnotus (talk) 10:04, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  I see this response as containing a number of wild inaccuracies, which I would like to tackle in sequence.

  I'll start with this one. The characterization of "recent changes to make RfCs unstoppable weapons" is very badly wrong. Where the changes are recent, they're mild clarifications. RfCs have been what you call "unstoppable weapons" for at least fifteen years.—S Marshall T/C 10:24, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  That is incorrect. Polygnotus (talk) 10:26, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  Either it's incorrect, as you say, or else it's one of a number of showstopping problems with your presentation above, as I say. How shall we decide which of us is correct?—S Marshall T/C 10:59, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  Trial by Mario Kart 64. Best of three. Polygnotus (talk) 11:03, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  All right, let's try another showstopping problem. You say RFCs are a tool for POV pushers; but I say they're the only effective counter to POV pushers, and if you force every RFC to go through a committee process before the RFC can be started, then you're handing another derailing tool to the POV pushers, aren't you?—S Marshall T/C 11:12, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  You say RFCs are a tool for POV pushers Worse. I did mention that the weaknesses can be easily exploited by POV pushers but I also said that a lot of people are simply unable to write a neutral RfC because they have blind spots for their own biases and don't think critically about framing. And that often the person who starts the RfC does not even fully understand the topic or its history, which means they ask the wrong question in the wrong way. Most of the RfCs I've seen were started in good faith but terrible.

  I say they're the only effective counter to POV pushers That is incorrect. Discussions have worked against POV pushers. Please correct me if I am wrong but I think you mean "the ability to attract more uninvolved people to a discussion". Note that I am, of course, not against that, and I have even offered suggestions on how to do that better.

  It is important to differentiate between RfCs as they are currently used and the ability to attract more uninvolved people to a discussion.

  if you force every RFC to go through a committee process before the RFC can be started, then you're handing another derailing tool to the POV pushers, aren't you? That was not the proposal tho. I don't think anyone proposed forming a committee. I assume you are referring to the conversation with Dw31415 but that wasn't about forming a committee, it was about introducing a draft period. Polygnotus (talk) 11:19, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

The problem with RFC isn't the question. RFCs are often started with terrible questions, and I think this happens scores of times a year. But responders aren't fooled. Wikipedians have their own minds and their own opinions. I wrote this in the information page you wrongly described as an "essay", which wording was developed through discussion on WT:RFC and was an immense improvement over the previous version.

Wikipedians come to RFC to offer a reasoned opinion, and with most discussions a decent closer ignores the words in bold, instead reading the thought and argument. The structure doesn't affect this.

I wish you wouldn't persist with this attempt to radically reform our only way to break to logjams in discussions, as you're consuming a lot of editor time without persuading many people.—S Marshall T/C 12:05, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

responders aren't fooled I don't wanna use the word fooled, because that implies people actively deceiving them, and it is difficult to differentiate between bad faith and good faith actions. But people who respond to RfCs on Wikipedia are rarely critical enough to challenge or reject the framing by the person who started the RfC. They tend to engage with the question as presented. And that often leads to worse outcomes. Saying that someone asks the wrong question feels rude and confrontational, even if it is correct, and most people are nice and polite and will just attempt to answer flawed questions instead of challenging the framing.

Wikipedians have their own minds and their own opinions. Those who believe themselves immune to propaganda... Usually you see the Third-person effect but this is an interesting variant.

Wikipedians come to RFC to offer a reasoned opinion It is real easy to have 2 RfCs about the same fundamental question but with different wording and framing and different options presented that will lead to very different results. People who don't see that happening are the ones it happens to most. Everyone is an independent thinker until they meet an independent thinker.

I wish you wouldn't persist with this attempt to radically reform our only way to break to logjams in discussions, as you're consuming a lot of editor time without persuading many people. So far I have spoken about it to 3 people. One conversation stranded, and one person did not get it (so far at least). To be fair this is complex stuff and I can't expect others to put so much time into researching this as I have. I've spent considerable time on this and it's not reasonable to expect others to arrive at the same conclusions without doing the same.

our only way to break to logjams in discussions It appears you are again mixing up RfCs and "the ability to attract more uninvolved people to a discussion". Those are 2 different things.

this attempt to radically reform our only way to break to logjams in discussions I am not attempting to radically reform anything. I am disagreeing with recent changes that made an information page worse. I want to go back to the status quo ante bellum because these changes are not improvements and no attempt was made to get consensus for them. Polygnotus (talk) 12:30, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Historically, what people who had knowledge did was to monetize it. In the past couple of decades, Wikipedia, together with other more reliable, but less broad, knowledge-sharing initiatives driven by universities and libraries, have started to subvert that monetization. We're slowly but I think importantly disrupting the knowledge economy.

I would very much love to believe this. However, is it true? Asmiov's Encyclopedia Galactica was a red herring for the Foundation to mount its own project and goals. Wikipedia's volunteer labor is co-opted by corporations and used to power Amazon, Google, OpenAI, and many others. Let me know when we get to the subversion part. Turn to page 392? A while back I studied the history of countercultural movements in the U.S. I was surprised to find that at almost level of the movement, whether it was social, religious, cultural, whatever—attempts were made by the rich and powerful to co-opt, manipulate, and redirect the movement in ways that were favorable to the establishment and ruling class. This was surprising to me, as it isn't something that is taught, it's a historical detail you have to discover for yourself. However, another thing that I found strange, when it comes to learning about such movements outside the U.S., this is very well known and is taught. It is especially the case when learning about countercultural movements in Iran, for example. One day, the Iranian Revolution (1979) was a left-wing and secularist movement. Suddenly, it was transformed into a right-wing religious movement. This is the kind of red herring that I'm talking about. I'm seeing this kind of thing right now in the history of radio and television in the U.S. I was under the mistaken impression, like most people, that those technologies were engineered and designed to serve the public good, with the funding of the government. But it turns out, these technologies were designed by the rich and powerful to promote their interests, not those of the public. Similarly, with the rise of information technology and the public web, the internet has displayed these same trends. We were sold the idea of knowledge-sharing, and yes, for a short period of time, perhaps from 1993 to 2001, this was mostly true. But the commercialization of the internet led to competition for clicks and attention, leaving the focus on knowledge behind in the dust. Now, in 2026, many people are getting their information from videos, LLMs, and information silos, the opposite of what the open web set out to achieve. Wikipedia's failure to assert its dominance in this arena makes it look like it intentionally took a weakened position to allow corporations to use its data any way they see fit, without asserting its primacy or value-added approach. Viriditas (talk) 01:26, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

• Well, it seems I'm much more sanguine than you are.
  I wrote that a lot of years ago before LLMs came to be, and of course I don't know much about the US (a country in which I've never set foot, and am unlikely to ever visit now). But I think it's a good thing that LLMs were so extensively trained on Wikipedia.
  Before LLMs the ignorant would get their information from social media. Living in their own filter bubbles they would tend towards ever more extreme views. Someone who started off sad because they were struggling to attract a girlfriend, would in six months be a raging misogynist. And in twelve months they'd be an incel who hated immigrants too. And at the end of that road, right down the far end when you've hated women and immigrants and Islam and gone to the far right marches, right at the end, there's still a little cave full of people who blame the Jews.
  LLMs aren't like that. If you ask a LLM a question, it'll answer like a centrist Dad. You might get a hallucination but you won't be invited to get on a high speed train to extremism. And that's partly because LLMs are trained on Wikipedia where neutrality matters (even if we sometimes don't achieve it). The effect is to narrow the Overton window and back away from some of the more unhinged things.
  And this means that extremist political leaders of superpowers are mostly done. They tend to be elderly anyway and their replacements will have to deal with a more centrist public opinion.
  The era when people could know things for a living is also done. Google and expert systems mean that's just over. Why pay an expert when knowledge is free?
  The era when people could make things for a living is also ending. LLMs can paint pictures and write symphonies. Tomorrow's LLMs will be able to paint masterpieces and write good symphonies. Hooked up to vehicles they will drive; hooked up to Boston Dynamics style robots they will work in factories and build houses.
  From here, I can see a future with full unemployment. It could be ghastly. But it could also be wonderful, and democracy means that wonderfulness travels.—S Marshall T/C 08:02, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

  AI psychosis is a thing, as is the argument to moderation, and of course technological utopianism, and the antidemocratic tendency of techno-authoritarianism, whose extreme focus on decentralization is essentially anti-government and pro-corporate monarchy. There's also the phenomenon of social media amplification and online youth radicalization, which computational propaganda researchers say is exacerbated by targeted use of new tech like LLMs, etc. The role of Facebook and YouTube in algorithmic radicalization is particularly alarming, as anyone who has spent any time setting their feed to just science videos and groups, suddenly finds their feeds flooded by conspiracy and hate nonsense. While this problem received much attention from about 2018 onwards, it was particularly insidious during the pandemic, when it was used to promote what is now called conspirituality, a kind of QAnon-adjacent hijacking of liberal communities, which targeted them on online platforms in an attempt to move their members farther to the right. Most major Silicon Valley social media platforms were entirely complicit in this radicalization and move towards extremism, so I'm a bit confused by your retelling of events up above. Implicit in your comments is the idea that discourse has been pushed to the middle, but this kind of rhetoric originates from the "abundance" crowd, which is an astroturfed movement funded by the right. Also, your comment about antisemitism seems really off. Hatewatch organizations say that antisemitism is at the highest level in modern history now. Particularly troubling is how right wing media platforms like Breitbart and video platforms like Rumble specialized in spreading antisemitic content, with their owners and investors also leading the Trump campaign and serving at the highest levels in the Trump admin. Then, in an example of the red herring I am referring to here, the Trump campaign, which had been put into power with antisemitic content producers, claimed to go after antisemitism, only to in fact, go after critics of Israel, progressives, left-wing critics of anti-democratic policies on the right, anti-fascists, and academic freedom in general. Most people who have studied this issue in any depth know exactly what is going on. Billionaires are intentionally flooding the zone with xenophobia, antisemitism, Islamophobia, sexism, racism, and homophobia. They are doing this to elevate culture war issues to the top of the agenda as noise to "drown out" calls for regulation of corporations and taxation of the wealthy, and to silence the mass popularity of social programs funded by the government, including education, living wages, universal healthcare, and environmental protection. This is what is happening. We know this, everyone knows this, and technology platforms are being used for this purpose, as machines of propaganda and disinformation. I don't think we are going to agree, but some of the side-issues are fascinating. Human lives and memories are short and fragile, but the capacity for digital institutional memory is something that interests me. Viriditas (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

  Lots to unpack there!

  On algorithmic radicalization, we certainly agree that it drives a substantial proportion of the rise of radical or extreme views in the 2010s. I don't think LLMs are part of it. I think they're a counter to it. When I ask a LLM a neutrally-worded political question, it answers like a centrist Dad. Therefore people influenced by social media are more radicalized than people influenced by LLMs.

  I was interested to read about conspirituality. I wasn't aware of it, and at least here in the UK, it hasn't taken root. (This might be because Brits as a population tend to be secular and cynical.)

  The tech bros don't control these things. When given free rein they're happy to target and control extremist thought. Under the current US administration they're happy to laissez faire. When the US administration changes, their behaviour will change.

  Where the tech bros do try to steer the way populations think, their efforts are so unsophisticated it's almost charming. You get things like Grokipedia which isn't a competitor for Wikipedia: it's a comedic meme. If you want to see an effective attempt to steer the way populations think, you need to look at the expert social engineers. Russia. But even Russia, with their blatantly pro-Trump stance and their long online reach, has their limits. They couldn't keep Keir Starmer out of office.

  The future absolutely does include living wages, universal healthcare, and environmental protection. I live in a country that has all three and the UK electorate will not give them up. The French, even more so; as a population the French are absolutely obdurate about healthcare, pay and conditions, and the environment. Scandinavia just over the water has a clear political consensus about all three. Germany won't elect the AFD because German history entrenches the Christian Democrats. Italy and Spain are as mercurial and flipfloppy as the US, though.—S Marshall T/C 09:07, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  I appreciate your response. Hungary was the testing ground. The US was the experiment. Europe is next. Viriditas (talk) 20:47, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi S Marshall, in the open Maghreb arbitration case, which you have commented on, a proposed decision has been posted. You can review the proposed decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the proposed decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Proposed decision. For the Arbitration Committee, EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:39, 21 April 2026 (UTC)