User talk:Toadspike: Difference between revisions

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Sultan ul Arifeen Hazrat Syed Rakhyal Shah Sufi Al Qadri

You appear to have reverted some valid changes of mind. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I've reverted that - @Toadspike, was this an error? CoconutOctopus talk 17:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger@CoconutOctopus Thanks for catching that – I noticed a small mistake in my relist notice, which I had to add manually due to a sock relisting the discussion and only getting partially reverted. I left to do some cooking right after that edit, so I'm only seeing this now. I'm very sorry about it. Toadspike [Talk] 17:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

(I must've accidentally edited an old revision of the page, not the newest one? No idea how that happened without me getting an edit conflict warning.) Toadspike [Talk] 18:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I'm off to cook the dinner myself now. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Church Fathers#Requested move 11 April 2025

Hi, your close would state: There is a clear consensus that "Church Fathers" is a proper name for the purposes of WP:NCCAPS and should be capitalized. Could you please be more specific as to where the strength of argument lies to reach such a conclusion, viewing the evidence and arguments through the lens of WP:NCCAPS or any other P&G relevant to determining what is a proper name that would be capitalised on WP. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Noting that I have read the above, but I am fairly busy at the moment and might only be able to reply by tomorrow. Toadspike [Talk] 15:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Given the comments there seems no other way of closing the discussion, many editors recognized the WP:COMMONSENSE of keeping the uppercasing of this familiar and historically grouping of a set number of individuals who shaped the Christian religion. Thanks for a good close. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

@Cinderella157 NCCAPS, in its first, bolded sentence, tells us to use sentence case, unless the title is a proper name. This caveat is explained, in its second sentence, as unless the title phrase is a proper name that would always occur capitalized, even mid-sentence. There is, to my knowledge, currently no project-wide consensus on what "would always occur capitalized, even mid-sentence" means. One interpretation, which I believe you share, is that "always capitalized" means "capitalized in all sources". Another interpretation, expressed by many other participants in this RM, is that "always capitalized" means most sources capitalize the name throughout the source's text; this view emphasizes the grammatical definition of "proper name". The disagreement on "where to draw the line" came up in a recent Village Pump discussion (which I participated in); though not formally closed, it seems folks broadly agree that "always" in NCCAPS does not literally means "always". I only say all this to emphasize that neither interpretation is, at the moment, considered so indisputably contrary to our naming conventions that I can disregard it as an RM closer. Thus, my close must reflect the interpretation of the RM participants.

Editors in favor of the move, including you, presented evidence (Ngrams, Google Scholar results) to justify the move. Most other editors were not persuaded, for two broad reasons: 1. Many offered different interpretations of the evidence or disputed the accuracy of your methodology. 2. Editors opposing the move emphasized "proper name" as their standard for capitalization, disagreeing with the interpretation of "would always occur capitalized" as meaning "is capitalized in all sources". Both of these are reasononable differences of opinion. They are not arguments that I, as a closer, can discount as cut-and-dry disregard for naming conventions. It is not my duty as closer to investigate the evidence myself and come to my own conclusions about its strength (unless I had reason to think the evidence was being presented dishonestly, which I did not). It is also not for me to determine how NCCAPS should be interpreted. There were some arguments on both sides that I downweighted or discounted as not based on evidence or guidelines, but these were just a handful; this still left more than twice as many editors opposing the move as supporting it with reasonable arguments, which is not a margin I can disregard in good faith as a closer without clearly supervoting.

Also, in case there was any doubt, my reminder about our civility policy was not directed at you.

Best, Toadspike [Talk] 15:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion you refer to at recent Village Pump discussion was "moved" from Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization) without including the earlier comments. The OP of the initial discussion questioned the semantics of always rather than the spirit and intent of the guidance or how it is understood linguistically.[1] The sentence from WP:NCCAPS For multiword page titles, one should leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper name that would always occur capitalized, even mid-sentence) is a truism and I see no one actually arguing against the truth of the statement. The corollary of this is ipso facto also a truism. WP:P&G represents the consensus of the broader community and the prevailing P&G on capitalisation and capitalisation of article titles (ie not just NCCAPS) has a history of long term stability. Consensus is not perfect agreement, as we see from the discussion you link. As you noted in your comment there, Wikipedia prefers to minimize capitalization, so the threshold cannot be 50%+1 of sources, it has to be a large majority [emphasis added]. This much is a settled matter.

You would indicate this view emphasizes the grammatical definition of "proper name". As something of a linguist, I think you would be aware that most European languages (with the notable exception of German) are quite rigorous in the application of capitalisation. They do not capitalise what are othererwise proper nouns when used attributively or adjectival forms of proper nouns. English does this. In English, it is also common to use capitalisation to denote significance, importance or for terms of art, where a term of art is an otherwise descriptive noun phrase that is given to have a particular meaning in a particular context.[2][3] These other uses of capitalisation explain a propensity to capitalise in specialist writing per WP:SSF. These other uses of capitalisation are not proper names, though In English, there is a common false perception of equivalence between what is a proper name and the orthography of capitalisation. This leads to a somewhat circular argument: We capitalise proper names therefore what we [might] capitalise are proper names. However, per MOS:SIGNIFCAPS, we do not capitalise for emphasis, distinction, importance or to denote a term of art. In the RM, there is an argument that Church Fathers (the capitalised form) has a semantic meaning different from the lowercase form. We also see comments: Clearly a proper noun distinguishing members of this group, the Church Fathers are referred to as a distinct group, which specifically applies only to those people who have been collectively recognised as such, and more. All of these arguments indicate capitalisation as a term of art that falls to MOS:SIGNIFCAPS - a matter raised in the RM. The argument that "Church fathers" or "church fathers" is non-specific and can mean something very different is not supported by perusal of sources nor was any actual evidence offered that would support this assertion - as raised in rebuttal in the RM.

Many people base their perception of what is a proper name on an incomplete definition and a perception that specificity of referent is a defining property when it is not. Per the RM, specificity of referent can also occur through the use if the definite article (the). Our article on proper name tells us that a proper name is not descriptive, as does the fuller definition here. Church fathers, however capitalised, is a descriptive term made specific through using the definite article. Claiming that because I see it capitalised it must be a proper noun is based on the false premise of equivalence and is logically fallacious. It is because of these general misperceptions that the spirit and intent of the prevailing P&G is to rely on evidence of usage to determine what we capitalise on WP rather than (incomplete) definitions and misinterpretations of what is a proper noun. A consequence is that we also capitalise descriptive names (eg French Revolution) when these are consistently capitalised in sources. No one has asserted (per your above) that NCCAPS tells us to rely on a definition of what is a proper noun|name. No one states a definition by which they would conclude this is a proper name (ie such assertions are unsubstantiated opinion).

Per this comment, I know that you are aware that consensus is determined through the lens of P&G and how WP:RMCIDC and WP:DISCARD apply. The prevailing P&G here requires evidence of usage in sources and a function of the closer is to ensure that any conclusion reached in respect to the evidence is a reasonable representation of the actual evidence. As with many RMs a very large proportion of the comments do not engage with the prevailing P&G or otherwise fall to DISCARD. I would note that the assessment of the type of evidence required here and its assessment is essentially a statistical question.

• Only one opposer (Chickdat) makes a specific reference to P&G. Even if their view is consistent with the spirit and intent of WP:AT (read as a whole), it still needs to be supported by evidence. Their view does not withstand unrebutted. Even if this view is reasonable Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names states: it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources). The actual evidence presented in this discussion indicates this threshold is not met for the uppercase term.
• The OP cites NCCAPS and that the term is far from always capped in sources. While MOS:CAPS is not directly, it is directly quoted: consistently capitalized in a substantial majority. There are also comments intended as references to MOS:CAPS: It is far from consistently capped and P&G is telling us that it is not necessary to cap.
• The raw ngram search here shows 53% capitalised based on two terms or 50% fully capitalised if including Church fathers, which does not support the present title. Capitalisation is based on usage in prose. There is no rebuttal to question this. It is well establisehed that ngrams also capture expected title case uses and overrepresent capitalisation with respect to prose - a matter raised in the RM and not disputed. Ngrams can be contexturalised to better capture prose usage. Randy presented this ngram for the church fathers. However, this does not reasonably exclude expected title case for tiles of references cited in sources - a matter raised in the RM. This ngram, contexturalising usage indicates a majority lowercase across the majority of examples. This ngram was also offered in rebuttal.
• One editor would state: The use of an N-gram here is deeply methodologically flawed as there are other circumstances in which those two words could be comfortably paired and the capitalized form is standard in academic literature to the best of my knowledge. And another: The use of an N-gram here is deeply methodologically flawed as there are other circumstances in which those two words could be comfortably paired and the capitalized form is standard in academic literature to the best of my knowledge. "Church fathers" or "church fathers" is non-specific and can mean something very different. The argument is that there is a semantic difference between the capitalised and uncapitalised form and that ngrams do not distingush the semantic difference. Both of these are premises made without substantiation (ie they are opinions). The rebuttal offered is based on actual google scholar evidence where the proportion of upper and lowercase is near equal and there is no evidence that church fathers (lowercase) refers to any other group other than those which are the subject of the article. Particular examples were offered and it was alleged that these were cherry picked. The response in rebuttal was: Pick and examine as many of the many lowercase examples in google scholar as you wish. They will not bare out your assertion that lowercase is a different topic. No example was produced to contradict this. The assertion that lowercase is a different topic is unsubstantiated (opinion). The opinion that lowercase is a different topic is reasonably shown to be false (disproven) by examination of actual evidence.
• It is one thing to dispute evidence but the basis for disputation must be substantiated if it is to carry weight.
• A simple google search includes many unreliable sources. It is not an appropriate sample consistent with P&G.
• As this is essentially a statistical question where the terms are in near equal proportions, are the two statistically different? Does 53% actually represent a majority or is it statistically too close to call? This is not an issue if one acknowledges that the consensus of the community is that it has to be a large majority before we apply capitalisation. As stated in the OP of the RM, what we are dealing with is is far from always capped in sources and we are not splitting hairs over whether this comes even close to a threshold of always either semantically or linguistically.
• Broad statements like Modern academic literature utilizes the capitalized form often enough are personal opinions (ie unsubstantiated) as to what modern academic literature actually does, as is the opinion that it is often enough.
• WP:OTHERCONTENT arguments (eg Founding Fathers) only carry weight if they are directly comparable and they are shown to represent best practice. This was not established. It was also rebutted in that there is no evidence that this represents best practice. While Randy presents an ngram for Fathers of the Church, this is not the title being discussed.

Your close does not appear to have been made through the lens of the prevailing P&G but by adopting a definition based argument which is not consistent with the spirit and intent of the prevailing P&G or actual evidence. Furthermore, your comment suggests an alternative view of NCCAPS which was not made in argument. Togeather, this could reasonably be seen as supervoting. It is also disappointing that you do not appear to have acted in accordance with the principles you have espoused elsewhere and which are consistent with how a closer is to determine consensus.

I apologise for the length but a detailed analysis requires detail. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:11, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Good lord, this is a lot. Yes, my close here may seem to contradict principles I've previously espoused elsewhere. I could try to thread the needle and explain in broad principles why they actually don't contradict, but in short: See boldface below and I disagree that Pbritti and Warrenmck's comments can be discounted.

In a situation like this, it is not possible for human editors to review and cite all of the millions of results on, say, Google Scholar, so I view arguments like "Modern academic literature utilizes the capitalized form often enough" as acceptable. You will counter with "but Ngrams", and I will say that the N-grams faced as much criticism as support and I cannot unilaterally rule that there was consensus that the N-grams are good evidence in favor of the move when there wasn't. Even if I know they are good evidence.

You are probably frustrated, but lets look at this the other way. What evidence would I have in favor of a move? Some N-grams that people disagreed with? A few results, of millions, on Google Scholar? All of this evidence was objected to in the discussion, and I have to close based on the discussion of the evidence, not the evidence itself.

I really would not mind if you took this to MRV; I would be interested to hear their opinions on the close. I might also consider overturning to "no consensus". Regardless, it is still clear to me that there wasn't a consensus to move.

(Also, this RM was a lot better than the MRV you linked: No locked socks, nobody cited the Wikipedia article itself, the OTHERSTUFF arguments were not obviously false, and there were no plain "per user" !votes. I am still not very happy with the quality of arguments, but I have to work with what I've got.) Toadspike [Talk] 10:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Your close was good, acceptable, and followed both the discussion and the guidelines. There was no way to close it any differently, so nothing to be unhappy about (just the opposite, you got it right!). Randy Kryn (talk) 01:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, as a general observation on RMs, it would be nice if people focused their arguments more on the sources and less on their personal experience. Toadspike [Talk] 06:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your engagement and taking the time to read my Good lord, this is a lot post. I noted that this is essentially a statistical question to determine the proportion of casing. No, we don't have to trawl through millions of results to do this. We can rely on what is at least a reasonable facsimile of a sample of sources. We can do this by perusing a number of pages from a search of google scholar (or other data bases of sources). It doesn't take much to see that the casing here is in near equal proportions (ie not significantly different) and perusing the snippets also confirms context. Both points are made in the RM and can be verified against the search provided.

An RM is essentially a debate, where arguments are presented and the strengths or weaknesses of those arguments are scutinised by the participants. I get the impression that you view the consensus to be based upon the individual VOTES viewed in isolation from the fuller debate? Where Anglicanus states "Church fathers" or "church fathers" is non-specific and can mean something very different [emphasis added]. This is conjectur, with no evidence to substantiate their opinion. With reference to actual (verifiable) evidence, the premise was shown in debate to be false, while on the otherhand, no actual evidence was presented that would support the conjecture. Consequently, the argument carries no weight. This rebuttal applies equally to other similar claims, such as the argument by Warrenmck about verb forms or Randy's assertion, Of course lowercase is a different topic.

Where Warrenmck states the capitalized form is standard in academic literature to the best of my knowledge [emphasis added] this is clearly unsubstantiated opinion. Pbritti states: Modern academic literature utilizes the capitalized form often enough ... The capitalized form is also certainly the most common form of the name. I am at a loss as to what the bit in the middle means; however, they are expressing an unsubstantiated opinion as to what academic literature does. It cannot be verified. However, if this was a reference to google scholar, then claiming it is standard (consistently done) it is patently false, where the google scholar evidence presented in the debate shows near equal capitalisation.

OTHERCONTENT is closely related to WP:OTHERSTUFF, which more fully captures the spirit and intent of why simply linking to another article as a claim of precedence is not an argument of weight. Simply linking to Founding Fathers was effectively rebutted in a way consistent with OTHERCONTENT and OTHERSTUFF.

I am hard pressed to see any argument made by the opposers that has withstood the scrutiny of debate given how the evidence has been discussed or arguments that have substance when viewed through the lens of the prevailing P&G. Near equal capitalisation in sources is not the WP threshold for capitalisation no matter how one tries to dice it. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Toadspike, for withstanding the walls of text without changing your close. Not everyone does. A move review has been started, which hopefully will endorse your valid and discussion-appropriate close. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:17, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Taiwan on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

NAC on Information Security Forum

I'd appreciate it if you would consider reverting your no consensus close on [[4]]. Per WP:NACD, "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins", which is the case here. Let'srun (talk) 20:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

@Let'srun I'm going to reopen this discussion, but I genuinely don't think this is a close call – it's as obvious a no-consensus as I've ever seen.

We currently have, by my count, 44 AfDs overdue for closing; we do not have enough admins closing AfDs at the moment (I have just posted at WP:AN asking for more admins to help out). So, when you make requests like this, please consider whether the odds of getting a different outcome are worth the costs of bogging down the process (WP:NOTBURO). Toadspike [Talk] 05:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I would have relisted the discussion, as it had only been relisted twice. Since an admin has now closed the discussion, I will not pursue the matter further at this time, but I'd encourage you to avoid closing AfD's as no consensus in the future and either let an admin make the call or relist the discussion, per WP:NACD. Let'srun (talk) 19:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thanks for your well-reasoned contributions to AfD as of late. We need more editors like yourself active in the area! Eddie891 Talk Work 09:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Wow, this is an honor! Thank you, Eddie! Toadspike [Talk] 10:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

AI

I was led to Wiki trying to sign up for an AI search app. Caroleojanpera (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

@Caroleojanpera Wikipedia does not have any AI search apps. I assume the app sent you here to read our explanations of terminology, not for any mandatory part of the sign-up process. However, if you want to stick around as an editor, we would love to have you! Help:Introduction has some guidance for that. Toadspike [Talk] 06:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teresa Harding (2nd nomination)

Hello, following a 2024 AfD discussion that closed as "redirect", Teresa Harding has been recreated and has been renominated for a redirect. The discussion is taking place here. I am notifying all participants in the earlier discussion. Thanks! Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me! I'm surprised to see this is an article I nominated, too. Toadspike [Talk] 15:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

RfC Closure at Talk:Forspoken#Follow-up RFC on Japan sales

I implemented the consensus per your closure at Talk:Forspoken#Follow-up RFC on Japan sales; BMWF has since reverted your closure (claiming WP:RFCNEUTRAL) & reverted my edit to the article. While my inclination is to revert & suggest to the editor to follow the steps at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, I'd also like to avoid triggering an edit war over this so thought I would reach out to you on next steps since you closed the RfC. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:03, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

There's nothing to do here. Toadspike closed a stale RFC after consensus was established. BMWF had enough time to vote. They can start a new RFC in the future if they like.2A00:FBC:EEE0:7188:C0AD:258D:91B6:241A (talk) 08:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Seems it's been sorted out now, thanks. For the record:

• The RfC wording was neutral – a one-sentence question asking if a specific fact should be included in the lead or not.
• The RfC had run long enough, with nearly nine days since the last comment at the time of my close.
• The additional comment posted by BMWF would not have changed the outcome. Toadspike [Talk] 09:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC)