Jump to content

User talk:Cremastra

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Luigi (character) WP:BADNAC

[edit]

I believe that this close was a WP:BADNAC. The rationale for closure states that "Thus, opposing comments which apparently misunderstood the intent of the move and objected to Mangione being the primary topic were given considerably less weight, as they are not pertinent to this RM." First of all, the move was based on Luigi Mangione being a potential primary topic, something that was noted as incorrect by people in the discussion. However, multiple oppose !votes mentioned Mangione to refute the initial nominator but also added that the discussion was not in fact about Mangione but the name in general. It is not clear whether these were also ignored. The closing rationale also refers to the argument of User:Joy that this is not the best-known Luigi, but all of the presented articles, such as Luigi Pirandello, run afoul of WP:PTM. Overall, I believe this is a "no consensus" closure, as there is no agreement either way. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:41, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that does not run afoul of WP:PTM. We've had this discussion probably dozens of times already, and repeating this claim that readers don't look for people under their own names is still contradicted by many known examples (like the recent Tito, Charlotte, Orlando).
Also, I've explicitly said that the character is possibly the best-known individual Luigi (but that it doesn't matter as much as one might assume), so the above seems to be a basic misreading of my argument.
The matter of Mangione ostensibly muddies the water, but any closer needs to be able to discern that in the discussion, the original proposer clarified their mention of Mangione within the first few days, and they were not subsequently contradicted by further arguments, beyond a few assertions and opinions.
The idea that the WP:CLOSE process was not observed appropriately here would be much easier to ponder if this complaint didn't make this many claims that should be discarded per WP:CLOSE.
On related note, a possible procedural issue that I looked at here is that Cremastra did not address Thomasfan1000's idea to move the general disambiguation page to Luigi. This was an idea brought up late, in response to a comment by Zxcvbnm, and didn't get explicit traction. It might have been another compromise worth exploring, maybe by making a note about it and extending the discussion period a bit longer. Nevertheless, as there was no traction after that comment on June 21, and two other supports came in on 22 and 26, it was still within the conventional parameters of RM closer behavior to disregard it, as an idea that never went anywhere.
AFAICT Cremastra applied WP:RMNAC well here. After the change at Luigi, we'll be able to better measure to what extent readers engage with these articles in this particular case, and have a new RM in a few months time based on hopefully better data. WP:Consensus is a process of compromise that depends on the quality of arguments, and having more measurements will hopefully help that quality.
So overall this kind of a closure is a positive development that we should encourage. We should not dissuade it by arguing with closers who did nothing wrong. --Joy (talk) 09:17, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone was seriously suggesting that Luigi Mangione was the primary topic for "Luigi", because, as you point out, that's a PTM. Mangione was used as an example of Luigi (given name) being the primary topic here. Some !voters didn't understand that, despite the nom's clarification. Cremastra (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand it. If Mangione and all the other Luigis are only partial title matches, how do they add up to primacy for their given name? What's the logic here? Mangione was used as an example of Luigi (given name) being the primary topic here. That makes no sense. A single person named Luigi is not an example of any such thing. And note that Joy does not agree with you about PTMs. Srnec (talk) 22:55, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Luigi (character) § Requested move 13 June 2025
@Srnec: Because as various voters put it, the first name is very common in real life; it's frankly laughable that this very common name would be supplanted by a video game character. Very definitely not the primary topic by long-term significance Mangione is mentioned as an example of why the real life given name should be given precedence over the video game character. I do not mean to suggest (nor, I think, does anyone) that Luigi Mangione is actually the primary topic for "Luigi"; his popularity is merely evidence that the widely used and common given name is the primary topic here and has more long-term significance than the video game character. Joy does not have to agree with me on PTMs because we are not part of "pro" and "anti" blocs here. I see where the confusion is coming from, though. The base point here is in my closing statement: Supporters presented the argument that Luigi is a common first name and has more long-time significance, while the character is not the primary topic, given the evidence of pageviews and the reader navigation chart at wikinav.
This is like if there was a moderately well-known fictional character known simply as "Andrew". It is still clear that Andrew is the primary topic because of the countless people named David Andrew, who add up to give the name more long-term significance and make it the primary topic. Cremastra (talk) 23:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You didnt mention the longterm significance criterion here, but your explanation is essentially overruling the character's pageview primacy by invoking the name Luigi's longterm significance. I think this would actually make sense and be fully correct if Luigi was a complete article in the same style as Spencer (surname). The problem is that its current state as a disambiguation page masquerading as a set-index list was ignored to make this decision, and there is the assumption that the article is inherently notable. In reality, it was split from the DAB page with no discussion as far as I'm aware. This split has caused a great deal of debate and confusion.
Tl;dr, your decision would be correct if the Luigi name article should reasonably exist; but I don't think it should. I think an AfD of the article should clear up whether it should even be there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:17, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. WP:NAMEPAGE informs us we can have both articles about the name itself and index articles listing people with the name. Cremastra (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have created another move discussion at Talk:Luigi as I have changed my mind about the deletion after doing some further research, and believe a move would be a better option, which may render this whole thing moot. You are welcome to state your opinion there as to whether it should be moved to List of people with the given name Luigi instead. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:35, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FYI
This section will be automatically archived soon, although this comment should bump that. Have concerns been resolved? Cremastra (talk) 05:04, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Pranjal02gautam (18:07, 16 July 2025)

[edit]

hi bro i recently faced issue due to references, any idea how to handle it? --Pranjal02gautam (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't call me "bro".
I assume you're referring to your draft, Draft:Shyam Kishor Awasthi, which you requested to be deleted. I can't see things that are deleted so can't tell what the specific problem was, but I'd advise you to follow the advice given on your talk page: please cite reliable sources and make sure all content is supported be references, even if you know it's true. It's very important that readers are able to know where the information is coming from. Wikipedia has a pretty steep learning curve, and I suggest you either make some small fixes to articles you come across and learn the ropes or settle down for some reading. WP:YFA and WP:BACKWARDS are helpful. You don't have to read the whole page (I myself never read the manual before starting), but at least give them a skim. If you have further questions, feel free to ask here. Cremastra (talk) 23:26, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from HotSaucerls (06:03, 17 July 2025)

[edit]

Hello how do I create an article --HotSaucerls (talk) 06:03, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Creating articles is a big task and I don't recommend it for newcomers. However, if you still want to do it, you should use the Articles for Creation process. You write the article in draftspace or your sandbox, then submit it for review. Then if the article is suitable, an experienced editor will move it to article space. For advice about what to do when writing an article, check out WP:Your first article. Best regards, QwertyForest (talk) 07:43, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections | Discussion phase

[edit]
Administrator Elections | Discussion phase

The discussion phase of the July 2025 administrator elections is officially open. As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

  • July 18–22 - Discussion phase (we are here)
  • July 23–29 - SecurePoll voting phase
  • July 30–c. Aug 3 - Scrutineering phase

We are currently in the discussion phase. The candidate subpages are open to questions and comments from everyone, in the same style as a request for adminship. You may discuss the candidates at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/Discussion phase.

On July 23, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's totals during the election. You must be extended confirmed to vote.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last approximately four days, or perhaps a little longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (you may want to watchlist this page) and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and must also have received a minimum of 20 support votes. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 July 2025

[edit]
Endowment tax form, Wikimania, elections, U4C, fundraising and a duck!
And how do we know?
Five-year journey comes to healthy fruition.
Wikimedians from around the world will gather in person and online at the twentieth annual meeting of Wikimania.
As well as "hermeneutic excursions" and other scientific research findings.
The report covers the Foundation's operations from July 2023 - June 2024
A step towards objective and comprehensive coverage of a project nearly too big to follow.
Drawn this century!
How data from the Wikipedia "necessary articles" lists can shed new light on the gender gap
Annual plans, external trends, infrastructure, equity, safety, and effectiveness. What does it all mean?
Rest in peace.
Wouldn't it be nice without billionaires, scandals, deaths, and wars?
If you are too blasé for Mr. Blasé and don't give a FAC.
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:49, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AElect

[edit]

Hello, just a heads up to let you know I've answered the questions you posed me over at AELECT - hopefully my answers cover what you were expecting to see but just let me know if you need me to expand on them! Thanks for taking the time to ask them! CoconutOctopus talk 10:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Cheers, Cremastra (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July thanks

[edit]
story · music · places

Thank you for improving article quality in July! - Three Ukrainian topics were on the main page today, at least at the beginning, RD and DYK, - see my talk. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections | Voting phase

[edit]
Administrator Elections | Voting phase

The voting phase of the July 2025 administrator elections has started and continues until July 29 at 23:59 UTC. You can participate in the voting phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/Voting phase.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

  • July 23–29 – Voting phase
  • July 30–c. Aug 3 – Scrutineering phase

In the voting phase, the candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies to vote will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's vote total during the election. The suffrage requirements are similar to those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for approximately four days, perhaps longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (this is a good page to watchlist), and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and a minimum of 20 support votes. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Clarity.Revisions (09:53, 24 July 2025)

[edit]
Clarity.Revisions's mentor Ixtal is away.

Can I create a new page for a brand that does not exist as long as it's neutral and factually correct? --Clarity.Revisions (talk) 09:53, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no, 'cause if the brand is nonexistent that's called a "hoax" and can't be factually correct. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 16:30, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:List of starfish in New Zealand

[edit]

Hello, Cremastra. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "List of starfish in New Zealand".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 21:11, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Ctenodiscus crispatus

[edit]

Hello, Cremastra. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Ctenodiscus crispatus".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions here. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 02:38, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cremastra&oldid=1302707651"