W
Active Editors
Back to Profile

User Talk: S Marshall

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

{{bots|allow=none}}
{{divbox|orange||Please don't use templates ↗ on this page. Just write me a message.<p>Since this is ''my'' talk page, I archive it to suit me; this means archives may be reorganized to group material by content instead of by date.}}
{{talkheader|noarchive=yes|search=yes}}
{{User:S Marshall/Archiveheader}}

July music


{{User QAIbox
| image = Chamomile and single poppy, Steckenroth.jpg
| image_upright = 1.3
| bold = story · music · places
}}
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)

Changes to WP:V



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 {{Diff| Wikipedia:Verifiability|1300775810|1300259864|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)

ITN recognition for Doris Gercke ↗



{{ivmbox
|1=On 5 August 2025, '''''In the news ↗''''' was updated with an item that involved the article '''''Doris Gercke ↗''''', which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page ↗. Curbon7 (talk) 09:36, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
|2={{Ambox globe current red}}
|imagesize=50px
}}

You have been awarded 2 points!



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)

POSTNOM close



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&nbsp;<sup>[talk]&nbsp;[OMT ↗]</sup> 02:26, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

List of contributors



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

August music


{{User QAIbox
| image = Spanish flag, wings open, Ehrenbach.jpg
| image_upright =
| bold = story · music · places
}}
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)

ghastly usability catastrophe?



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)
:—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>&nbsp;<small>T/C ↗</small> 17:34, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

John Fraser (Canadian soccer) deletion review



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)

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

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.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>&nbsp;<small>T/C ↗</small> 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)

Context re NOR



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.{{pb}}
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.
{{pb}}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.
{{pb}}
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.{{pb}}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)

Survey



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)

Selectively transcluding references



Around a year ago at the at Split proposal ↗ for List of common misconceptions ↗, you wrote ↗:
: {{xt|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 {{u|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 {{t|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. {{t|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)

A cup of tea for you!



{| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 120px ↗
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | I am much obliged for your closure of the MoS RfC that I started. If you think me mad, or a fool, be assured that I am indeed both. In any case, I remain, as always, in awe of your good cheer. <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:8pt;color:#000000">''Yours, &c.''</span> <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:12pt;color:#000000">RGloucester </span> — ☎ 23:28, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
|}

ARCA request closed



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 {{userlinks|TenPoundHammer}} is allowed to remove WP:PROD ↗s as well as improve articles that have been PRODded. Regards, <span style="color:#C01933">'''~delta'''</span> <sup>(<span style="color:#003366">'''talk'''</span> • <span style="color:#003366">'''cont'''</span> ↗)</sup> 17:26, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!



{| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 100px ↗
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Barnstar of Diplomacy'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | This ↗ detailed explanation is the kind of thing I'd been hoping for with my post at Wikipedia:Closure requests ↗. I hope that the newcomer will find it informative, even though they will probably be disappointed with the overall result. Thank you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
|}

WP:RFC ↗ close at Talk:Hrvatska ↗


{{archive top|Thank you for confirming this close.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>&nbsp;<small>T/C ↗</small> 00:10, 17 November 2025 (UTC)|Resolved}}
I demonstrated the reasons for the argument I was making. These were not actually disputed or contradicted by anyone.

This closure would mean we're making decisions based on people saying something, going away and never reading the rest of the discussion, and then having their previous unvetted opinions override the rest of the discussion in perpetuity.

This is not how WP:Consensus ↗ works :) Some of its key points in this case are:

: {{tq|The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view.}}

: {{tq|Consensus cannot always be assumed simply because editors stop responding to talk page discussions in which they have already participated.}}

: {{tq|The goal of a consensus-building discussion is to resolve disputes in a way that reflects Wikipedia's goals and policies while angering as few editors as possible.}}

: {{tq|Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.}}

I don't think anyone would really argue that the status quo angers anyone - with so little participation especially.

And as mentioned before, I don't see anyone actually arguing that my interpretation of the policies and guidelines in this case is incorrect.

Please apply the fine policy and undo that closure. --Joy (talk) 13:39, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

:(1) We can assume, as you argue, that that's because nobody has read your points or thought about them. In that case I should reopen; or
:(2) We can assume, as I did, that nobody was persuaded by what you said. In that case I should leave it closed.
:I try to avoid (1) because it tends to mean the last person to reply wins.
:But in this case it might have been because your intervention came after the RfC had expired and nobody was watching. So I'll ping the relevant editors and ask them. {{ping|Shhhnotsoloud}}, {{ping|Thryduulf}}, {{ping|PamD}} -- did you read Joy's points? How do you react to them?—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>&nbsp;<small>T/C ↗</small> 13:49, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
::At this stage I can't remember whether I read Joy's reiterated points or had simply read the previous point. I seem not to have subscribed to the discussion, which I usually try to do, and the page isn't on my watchlist (might have been temporarily during the discussion?) I remain unconvinced by Joy's arguments and happy with the existing situation where the country's name redirects to the country article, with a hatnote to help readers who need another use of the term. I note that Deutschland ↗, España ↗, Italia ↗ and Sverige ↗ redirect to the countries, though that last one lacked the necessary hatnote until just now; Norge ↗ is a dab page with a lot of other uses but the country as top listing; Helvetia ↗ is a personification but has the country name in first line; Brasil ↗ redirects to the country, and Brazil (disambiguation) ↗ includes both spellings, but this wasn't clear to the reader until I tweaked the hatnote on Brazil ↗ just now; can't think right now of any other examples of countries where I know the native name and it's different from our English name of the article.
::TLDR ↗ I'm happy with the RFC close, but this has led me down some interesting rabbit holes! <span style="color: green">'''''Pam'''''</span><span style="color: brown">'''''D'''''</span> 16:12, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
:::I like the idea of comparisons, esp. Deutschland and Helvetia, being very different from Germany and Switzerland just like Hrvatska is very different from Croatia.
:::But there's also nuance there that is not noticed - in those cases the various other topics are named with different adjectival forms, like the terms Deutsch ↗, Deutsche ↗, Deutscher ↗, Deutsches ↗. So it's Deutsche Bahn ↗ or Deutsche Bank ↗, not Deutschland Bahn ↗ or Bank ↗ where there might have been an immediate cause to address ambiguity and navigation in English. Deutschland (disambiguation) ↗ mostly lists ships, which are of far less significance and reach. So it's naturally less of a case there to ponder.
:::At the same time, I don't think the second hatnote on top of the Germany article is useful, either, given that this is the ratio of views ↗ - the lookups of Deutschland are a blip on the radar either way, even with some local spikes when you just zoom in on those. And in turn it's even less meaningful given that it is only these random ships.
:::In case of Switzerland - there we have Schweiz ↗ for the country but then there's Schweizer ↗ or Schweizerisch ↗ or Schweizerische ↗, so in turn Schweizerische Bundesbahnen ↗ or Schweizerische Luftverkehr ↗. --Joy (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
::I don't think I saw Joy's comments but having now read them, they do not change my opinion. Thryduulf (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
:::I love how the response to closer saying they're stuck on a fork because they don't have enough information is how an ''opinion'' is not changed :D --Joy (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
::::Eh? Thryduulf (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
:::::WP:CONS ↗ says we're supposed to have a discussion based on reasons, but people habitually comment assertions, and nobody bats an eye. The spirit of the policy is that opinions as such don't really matter, yet here we are. Our processes are sometimes frustrating to the point of being amusing, like a bizarre work of art. --Joy (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
::I did see Joy's comments. I'm content with the close. And thank you S Marshall for your efforts. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message



<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;flex-basis: 40px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2025 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2025|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee ↗ is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process ↗. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans ↗, topic bans ↗, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy ↗ describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2025|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2025 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2025/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1322757968 -->

Advance UK



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 {{tq|"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)

Zizians



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)

A pie for you!



{| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 120px ↗
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Consolation prize but SFR won with 703 ↗ vs 684 ↗ words. Nice try tho! Polygnotus (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
|}

November music


{{User QAIbox
| image = Aulhausen, translucent wine leaves.jpg
| image_upright = 0.8
| bold = story · music · places
}}
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)

Thoughtful close



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, —<span style="font-family: verdana; color: navy;"><b>Myceteae</b></span><span style="visibility:hidden; color:transparent; padding-left:2px">{{zero width joiner}}</span>🍄‍🟫 (<span style="font-family: verdana;"><i>talk</i></span>) 01:07, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Consensus for status quo ante vs. no consensus



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)

December music


{{User QAIbox
| image = Red leaves wih frost, Ehrenbach.jpg
| image_upright = 1.3
| bold = story · music · places
}}
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)

Copying message



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)

Your plea at George Formby ↗ ibox close



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:

Best, Johnbod (talk) 00:11, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
::::::: Why don't we use <nowiki><score></nowiki>?
<score sound="1">\relative c' {
\key c \major \time 3/4
c d e f g a b <c, e, e' g'>2
}</score>
::::::: I just had lots of fun working out how to do that!—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>&nbsp;<small>T/C ↗</small> 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... —<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>&nbsp;<small>T/C ↗</small> 08:09, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
{{od}} 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)

A barnstar for you!



{| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 100px ↗
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Teamwork Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thank you for providing excellent guidance to editors at Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion ↗. <span style="background:gold">'''''BD2412'''''</span> '''T''' 23:33, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
|}

Seasons greetings!



{| style="width:100%; background:linear-gradient(#fffdf5, #ffefd0); border:1px solid #d8cbb0; border-radius:8px; padding:0.5em; text-align:center;"
|-
| style="padding:0.6em; width:25%;" |
250px|alt=Snowy winter landscape with trees at Shipka Pass ↗
| style="padding:0.9em; font-size:105%;" |
'''Wishing you and yours a fantastic Christmas (or holiday season for those who don’t celebrate) and all the best for 2026.''' 🎄 ❄️☃️

Here’s to a collaborative, constructive year ahead — with good faith, good edits, and just enough discussion to get things done!

(and here's Sir Nils Olav ↗ inspecting his troops... one of my favourite POTDs ↗)

''Cheers &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;Amakuru (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2025 (UTC)''
| style="padding:0.6em; width:25%;" |
250px|alt=Penguin inspecting uniformed soldiers ↗
|-
|} &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;Amakuru (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Happy New Year, S Marshall!


<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em; height:auto; min-height:173px; border-radius:1em; box-shadow:.1em .1em .5em rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.75); box-shadow:.1em .1em .5em light-dark(rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.75), rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.75));" class="plainlinks">
left|x173px ↗x173px|right ↗
{{Paragraph break}}
{{Center|{{resize|179%|'''''Happy New Year ↗!'''''}}}}
'''S Marshall''',<br />Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year ↗, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
<br />BhikhariInformer (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2025 (UTC)<br /><br />
</div>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''{{resize|88%|Send New Year cheer by adding {{tls|Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.}}''
{{clear}}<!-- From template:Happy New Year fireworks --> BhikhariInformer (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

January music


{{User QAIbox
| image = Hazel in bloom near Leine, Döhren.jpg
| image_upright = 1.3
| bold = story · music · places
}}
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)

Your nice close on Trump


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)

WP:ENGVAR ↗ of Formaldehyde ↗



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)

List of fictional diseases ↗


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)

: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 <nowiki>#REDIRECTTarget article ↗</nowiki>.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>&nbsp;<small>T/C ↗</small> 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!—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>&nbsp;<small>T/C ↗</small> 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)

Re: Hoarding



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)

February music


{{User QAIbox
| image = Crocus meadow, Ehrenbach.jpg
| image_upright = 1.3
| bold = story · music · places
}}
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)

Your closure



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 {{tq|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)

Your Greenland crisis closure



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 enjoyed reading your User page



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)

March music


{{User QAIbox
| image = Blackthorn with peacock butterfly, Niederauroff.jpg
| image_upright = 0.9
| bold = story · music · places
}}
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)

Infobox criteria



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)

: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.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>&nbsp;<small>T/C ↗</small> 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.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>&nbsp;<small>T/C ↗</small> 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.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>&nbsp;<small>T/C ↗</small> 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.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>&nbsp;<small>T/C ↗</small> 08:34, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Johnbod}} is likely to have useful thoughts.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>&nbsp;<small>T/C ↗</small> 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.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>&nbsp;<small>T/C ↗</small> 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 {{diff|User talk:SchroCat|1314799820||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 {{diff|Percy Grainger|579193399||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.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>&nbsp;<small>T/C ↗</small> 17:51, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

ArbCom Comment



You wrote: {{tq|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 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.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>&nbsp;<small>T/C ↗</small> 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.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>&nbsp;<small>T/C ↗</small> 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.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>&nbsp;<small>T/C ↗</small> 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)

FYI



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)

"without sanction for others"


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:

{| class="wikitable"
|+
|-
! GLL's ABF version !! !! Reality check
|-
| *2025-03: Tim Riley gets into a dispute at Maurice Ravel ↗ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maurice_Ravel&diff=prev&oldid=1281023699 ↗ {{tqq|Reverting weird changes to agreed FA version}}. Schrocat then joins in to revert the other editorhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maurice_Ravel&diff=next&oldid=1281059693 ↗, accusing them of editwarring, and personalizes the dispute. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maurice_Ravel#c-SchroCat-20250318142900-ViridianPenguin-20250318142000 ↗ ({{tqqi|casting underhand slurs with that rather unpleasant little post}}) || || Loaded language: the other editor ''was'' edit warring: asking someone to use the talk page and not edit war shouldn't ever be problematic. I'll stand by the description of "rather unpleasant little post": it's exactly what it was, it focused on Tim, and not on the matter in hand. It's funny that didn't get mentioned by GLL, but there's no point in honesty in the thread, as far as I can see
|-
| *2025-07: Riley uses AI to "upscale" historic images; Ssilvers and Schrocat join in the dispute & personalize it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tim_riley/Archive48#c-Ssilvers-20250718180400-Restored_images ↗https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tim_riley/Archive48#c-SchroCat-20250718152400-D._Benjamin_Miller-20250718151500 ↗ || || My only two comments in that thread were https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tim_riley&diff=prev&oldid=1301192336 ↗ and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tim_riley&diff=prev&oldid=1301219979 ↗. Why GLL lied to claim I personalised the debate is beyond me, but I would suggest sanction should be levelled against editors who lie about others to try and get them censured.
|-
| *2026-01: Riley is brought to AN/I, both Schrocat and FIM personalize it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-SchroCat-20260101151500-Mackensen-20260101143800 ↗https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Mackensen-20260101201000-Fortuna_imperatrix_mundi-20260101181300 ↗ || || I was one of the named parties at the ANI dispute, so Tim and I were taken to ANI (why GLL can't be bothered to use his full name and only refers to him as "Riley" is beyond me). Yes, my reactions may have crossed a line (which I've already admitted and which I'm working on), but phrasing it as Tim is taken to ANI and I intervene as part of tag teaming is a lie: I was one of the named parties, so was there from the start, not as part of tag teaming.
|-
| *2026-02,: Schrocat tells others to leave an article (Mud March (suffragists) ↗) alone || || I did not "tell others to leave an article": I suggested that one option of others that had been put forward was "Or just leave it alone". That's not 'telling others' unless you're actively ''trying'' to ABF
|}

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)


SchroCat arbitration case opened



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<sup>Talk</sup><sub>Contribs ↗</sub> 10:42, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

April music


{{User QAIbox
| image = Oberauroff, purple dragon.jpg
| image_upright = 1.3
| bold = story · music · places
}}
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, {{diff|Talk:Erik Satie|1277836939||as WhatamIdoing did}}. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:28, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

: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.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>&nbsp;<small>T/C ↗</small> 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. :)—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>&nbsp;<small>T/C ↗</small> 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 <s>Russia:</s> Israel: it takes territory at any cost and doesn't yield it. The opposition is like <s>Ukraine:</s> 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.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>&nbsp;<small>T/C ↗</small> 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 {{diff|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchroCat/Evidence|1347248319||my evidence that was reverted}}, as nothing "against" a party? The peace {{diff|Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox|561517627||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 {{diff|Percy Grainger|579193399||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).—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>&nbsp;<small>T/C ↗</small> 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.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>&nbsp;<small>T/C ↗</small> 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.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>&nbsp;<small>T/C ↗</small> 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.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>&nbsp;<small>T/C ↗</small> 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)

{{outdent}}
It's possible that an infobox would be distracting to some readers. There's a thing in computer-based standardized test ↗s 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:

<pre>
| reading || question |
| passage || |
</pre>

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

{{pre|1=
----
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.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>&nbsp;<small>T/C ↗</small> 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.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>&nbsp;<small>T/C ↗</small> 11:03, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

=Literacy and infoboxes=


To my shame, I don't have the knowledge to offer any useful thoughts about how infoboxes affect visually impaired people or screen reader users.

I think there's a separate category of people who aren't in any way disabled and don't have accessibility needs, but who do have more limited literacy. Imagine an ability spread, with the people who did best in literacy at school on the right, and people who did less well on the left.

{{Progression rainbow|10|40|40|10}}

The Purple People would include those with learning impairments. The Red People aren't disabled; they're just of below average literacy. Almost all the committed Wikipedians who're active on talk pages are in the orange or yellow, and I'm going to go ahead and say ''everyone'' who's reading this is in the yellow on the far right of the graph. (If you're reading this, then you've read and followed a colossal amount of text without losing interest, which suggests that you're a highly fluent reader.)

We Yellow People often don't appreciate what life is like for the Red People. For them, reading is ''effort''. They want a payoff in knowledge for their investment, and they look for reassurance that they're on the right page before they start to read. An infobox is ''great'' for the Red People. It's got the facts and figures right there, but more than that, it's got a relevant image that reassures them they're on the right page and the knowledge they need is likely to be found here. (Cue Wikipedians describing that image as "decorative". If you just heard a noise, it was just my eyes rolling at 3,000 rpm.)

What we owe to the Red People is a duty of care about infoboxes. We should generally have one where relevant; it should have a reassuring image to tell them they're on the right page; and every single fact or claim in the infobox should be impeccably well-sourced and neutral. We should never have an infobox that misleads or deceives them.

This last consideration suggests that where there's dispute about whether or not to have an infobox, we should default to not having one.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>&nbsp;<small>T/C ↗</small> 09:13, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
: I followed the text, but not the consequence. The default on Wikipedia is having an infobox (I worked on Kafka ↗, you said Handel ↗ was ok). Disputes are ''rare'', and having become ''rarer'', and we should find a way to find compromise, to make them still rarer. I am proud to have "invented" Beethoven's infobox, and the edit I liked best in my 16 years here was the arbitrator who wrote the 2013 infobox case adding that to the article as the community consensus. #2 favourite is Whatamidoing's in the Satie RfC, pointed out in this thread already. We start what today? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:31, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
::I think he's assuming that disputes about whether or not to have an infobox are usually because the contents would mislead or deceive. That's not my experience. The ones that rise to the 'dispute' level are more often about personal preferences. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:14, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
:::I give the objectors in "Should George Formby have an infobox?" ↗ somewhat longer shrift than WAID does, then. In that discussion I felt that "Factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance" (Ssilvers) was the strongest example of a weighty objection because it's falsifiable ↗. The proposers could have countered it by listing the intended, well-contextualized content of the infobox, or ideally mocking it up with an example; but they didn't, so with my closer hat on, I could have given that weight.
:::OK, instead of doing that I chose to use the close as a platform to soapbox about the lack of guidance for closers in re infoboxes, but I ''could'' have given it weight. I wouldn't fault another closer who did.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>&nbsp;<small>T/C ↗</small> 17:18, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
::::Or you could have taken into account the reputation of the poster, and wondered whether the person claiming the rather extraordinary idea that the entertainer's name, birth date, place of birth, etc. needed special "contextualization" or "nuance" should be the one providing the evidence. That RFC was triggered by an edit from an IP; you can see the proposed infobox here ↗. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::Oh, that's interesting. I feel as if I've got a solid basis to give less weight to single-purpose accounts or editors without much contribution history. But "the reputation of the poster" is a factor in an RfC close because...?—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>&nbsp;<small>T/C ↗</small> 17:47, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::The reputation of the poster is always a factor. As you say, less weight to someone with a reputation for banging on about a single thing ("single-purpose account"). Less weight to someone with an unknown reputation ("editors without much contribution history"). But also: Less weight to someone with a reputation for making bold pronouncements on subjects they know nothing about. More weight to someone with a reputation for knowing this particular subject area (e.g., Tony1 on grammar, certain admins on behavioral problems). More weight to someone with a reputation for knowing Wikipedia's rules for the relevant subject area (e.g., SlimVirgin on NPOV and BLP). We do this, and we accept this, though it's not considered appropriate to say that we're doing it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Are you saying there's an unwritten rule that I should give less weight to people who're known for banging tediously on about infoboxes?—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>&nbsp;<small>T/C ↗</small> 18:56, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::::If they're voting against their reputational pattern, you might give much more weight ("if even ''he'' agrees, then obviously we should"). But to use your example about contextualization, if someone's voting on pattern, a statement like "No, because context" could represent a genuine concern that there would be some contextualization necessary to correctly understand the ordinary infobox contents for this particular subject, but I'd bet that it actually means that the person holds the POV that infoboxes are always and inherently collections of out-of-context factoids, and so this isn't an evaluation of the specific subject at all. And in that case, yes, less weight, because the one rule we've agreed on is that (ArbCom says) the evaluation must be individualized to each article and not just "all infoboxes are context-less, including this one". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::Hmm. I still really wish we had a community rule about infoboxes that gives me some kind of basis for a close. I think decisions about infobox inclusion are content decisions, and Arbcom doesn't get to make content decisions, although in the absence of any other rules, Arbcom's advisory opinion is persuasive. I think that because we don't have a rule, the evaluation of consensus is pretty vote-like and this makes people behave in a voting way. Which incentivizes people who're passionate about infoboxes to show up. I think disregarding the most passionate people on a given topic sounds like something that's liable to get the closer in quite a lot of trouble.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>&nbsp;<small>T/C ↗</small> 21:33, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::We might get something similar to "a community rule", if anyone ever notices the RFC I started today. I finally placed a !vote myself, with the thought that people might be finding it too confusing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::: I'll go ;) - We had an effort a few years ago ↗. I made one comment. Someone else made 39 comments and had the last word. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:33, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
::: The idea of "weight", "contextualization", "nuance" came up in a different discussion, and what I answered was what I said further up (not the job of the infobox to "express" anything), and I wait for an answer which I will perhaps get here: where would balance in an infobox even be requested ("summary of key facts")? What I want in an infobox about a person (and those are the ones that get disputed, with the exception of Rinaldo (opera) ↗, - 1769 operas have an infobox but not that one) is a place in history (time and location of birth and death) and why we we have an article (occupation or a list of works). Anything else is nice and may differ from case to case, for example education if it was relevant to a career, residence if different from the other places, significant awards, children, yes, especially for women, - we can't help that they change the lives of their mother more than their father ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
:::: No, I don't think the question of balance in infoboxes is particularly about composers, or other kinds of people. The questions about balance in infoboxes that I encounter look like this ↗ or this ↗ or this ↗, and it's this kind of discussion that brings me to the principle of ''if in doubt, leave it out''.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>&nbsp;<small>T/C ↗</small> 18:53, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
::::: ok, I see that is about specific parameters within an infobox. - The objection of SchoCat and others, however, is or was to having an infobox at all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::: I think those two things are closely tied together. I think there's a feeling that as soon as an infobox gets added to an article, that creates a desire to populate all the parameters, sometimes inappropriately, and it's therefore less effort not to have an infobox at all. In fact that's a train of thought that underlies a great deal of opposition to infoboxes.
:::::: And if that's true, we might reduce the amount of opposition to infoboxes by deciding that where there's dispute about whether to populate a parameter, it gets left out.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>&nbsp;<small>T/C ↗</small> 20:52, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::: I think the James Joyce ↗ case could be a model for a discussion growing from strict "no" to discussing parameters. Only those with good arguments were "populated". - I didn't mean to enter the Evidence stage of this arbcase at all, but when JJ was mentioned in evidence as if it was just DB and I versus a majority of opposers, I changed my mind (and was criticised on the talk). I keep watching but try not to comment. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::: I was wrong, bad memory, Joyce (in Archive 4) was the case where one of the key authors offered a short infobox which found support (2023). The one with the discussion of parameters was a different one. I will have to search. (I stopped keeping track after Mozart, - really thought everything had been argued.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::: Found it W. B. Yeats ↗ (2025), discussion still on the talk, initiated by Absolutiva, DB making a few comments. SchroCat "voted" no, twice, but then noticed, striking the second, and then joined in saying no to some of the parameters. No wonder Yeats is not part of the evidence, - so nice and normal ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::: I'm still waiting for the territory analogy to disappear. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:33, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::::: I've changed it and you don't like the change. What contested colonization analogy ''would'' you accept?—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>&nbsp;<small>T/C ↗</small> 11:02, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::::: none - people have tried to improve accessibility by adding something, taking nothing away (colonization of what?), and have been labeled as warriors on a crusade, DB is just of many, with victims on both sides - I'm unwatching the arbcase. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:24, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::I don't think that's true. "Adding something" can be a kind of "taking".
::::::::::Imagine that your neighbor frequently stops by your house. They stop in for a couple of minutes and put a little unwrapped gift in your house. If you get rid of it, they are upset, and all the neighbors gather to complain about you. If you put it in the trash, the neighbors fish it out and bring it back. But the things just keep piling up – a little cat figurine on the table, a little artificial flower on the shelf, an extra bottle of cleaning spray by the door. You've lost control of your home (and possibly your temper), and your chosen design scheme has been replaced by mismatched clutter. Did they really "take nothing" from you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::: I can imagine. Only, a Wikipedia article I write is not "my house", not even "my article", but for our readers. They seem to have different wishes, even the same reader may have different wishes from day to day and topic to topic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::Compare your view against m:User:Julle/Essays/Wikipedia as a physical space ↗. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::: Interesting. My talk is my space that I furnish to my liking, an article is not. In my first article, I used '''bold''' to highlight. I learned it's not Wikipedia style. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

April music continued


Today's FA is Bridge ↗, - a broad topic by many. My father loved bridges, and I wrote a few articles with that in mind (Empress Elisabeth Bridge ↗, adding to Chain bridge ↗ and Müngsten Bridge ↗, the latter for childhood memory), and also thinking of bridges between people. - I brought two bios to the same page ↗, Christian Schwarz-Schilling ↗ and Bill Ramsey ↗ whose regular ''Swingtime'' I used to hear in the car driving to choir rehearsals. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

My story today is about Michael Tilson Thomas ↗, - I hope I can win you to read and listen. Perhaps look a bit at the composers linked (c. 40). Then you might be prepared to close the RfC on classical music ↗. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Today's story is about one of three bios I brought to today's main page: look and listen, an extraordinary woman in many respects (13 composer and performers mentioned, more to come). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Diff



Comment ↗(?) on a close you made months ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:15, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
{{unindent}} 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.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>&nbsp;<small>T/C ↗</small> 12:05, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

:{{tq|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.
:{{tq|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.
:{{tq|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.
:{{tq|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.
:{{tq|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.
:{{tq|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)

Re: User page



:{{tq|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)


Notification of proposed decision



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 <sup>(talk ↗) </sup> 04:39, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:EggRoll97@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:EggRoll97/test1&oldid=1350299677 -->

On-time ArbCom decisions



Reflecting on your point ↗ at the current case, I think ArbCom sometimes gets an unfair wrap about on-time decisions. I know that every case I drafted came in on-time or early (admittedly with the caveat that in one case we gave ourselves an extra week for the PD when the Workshop phase closed). An example of a case you participated in that came in a day early is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing/Proposed decision ↗. But some arbs/committees are definitely better than others at getting decisions out on time and it's definitely an asymmetical problem where a case can be like 3, 4, 5 weeks late but could never be that same amount early. Barkeep49 (talk ↗) 20:38, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

You may be eligible to vote in the U4C election



<section begin="announcement-content" />
I am contacting you because you previously voted in elections related to the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ↗. You may be eligible to vote in the current U4C election, which is open now and closes on 2 June 2026. You can find out more about the candidates and the election on the election page on Meta ↗, and from there you can access the vote itself. Your participation in these elections is important to the governance of Wikimedia communities, and your time spent learning about the candidates and voting is appreciated.

-- In cooperation with the U4C, Keegan (WMF) ↗ (talk ↗)<section end="announcement-content" />

Keegan (WMF) ↗ (talk ↗) 17:16, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Keegan (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Keegan_(WMF)/test&oldid=30569826 -->

Uniqueness of 4 July



This is not a dispute of your close (which was pretty solid), but I'm intrigued by your mention of the US's anniversary being very unique at Special:GoToComment/c-S Marshall-20260624081400-RfC: Should the following sentence summarizing controversies related to America' ↗. I would argue that the US's anniversary isn't that unique. Every state I know has a National Day ↗ based on dated documents, or otherwise well-documented events. Their anniversaries are just as important.

4 July is only unique in that the US had little myths (that it adopts, anyways. The aboriginals the US unjustly exclude) before its creation. Though rare, it doesn't make the United States unique either. There's many examples of frontier-ish settlements that turned into countries under which this usually happens. One example could be Trinidad and Tobago ↗.

When I was in social studies we actually categorized the different forms of National Day; there was a birthday category under which the majority of National Day–s fell, and 4 July wasn't in there for a very defensible reason: it's based on the Declaration of Independence, which doesn't actually define a government. Legally, it's very arguable that it's not the formal proclamation of establishment. It's more of a petition of grievances and for recognition. Practically, the Continental government had already been operating and in control for a long time, and the modern government wouldn't be until the Constitution was ratified in 1788 or convened until 1789. In solidarity ↗, <span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span> (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2026 (UTC)


RfC about LFI



Hi, I'm sorry but I have to disagree with this closure ↗. There are many issue IMHO:
--<span style="color:#B20000;">'''Friniate'''</span> <span style="color:black; font-size:100%"> ✉ </span> 10:05, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

:And by the way, I'm not seeking to change the article right now, I think that in absence of a specific article about the radical left "left-wing to far-left" is an acceptable temporary solution. What I disagree with is the closure which I think that is at the very least insufficiently accounted for. --<span style="color:#B20000;">'''Friniate'''</span> <span style="color:black; font-size:100%"> ✉ </span> 10:08, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

::Welcome to my talk page! Given your high level of investment in the RfC and the passion for the subject that you've displayed, I was expecting you.
::It says "Left wing to far left" at the moment, yes, part of which is "Left wing". I should have said that the stable (pre-edit war) version was "Left wing" and I will edit that now.
::As GlowstoneUnknown rightly points out during the debate, "radical left" isn't a well-defined phenomenon and doesn't have an article, so "radical left" as a label is obfuscatory rather than illuminating for a general reader. (Contrariwise the "radical right" ''is'' a well-defined phenomenon, at least in the politics of the countries I know about.)
::On the other hand, Left-wing populism ↗ is well-defined. I fail to see the distinction between "ideology" and "political position".—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>&nbsp;<small>T/C ↗</small> 10:45, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
:::Ok, so according to your closure we should bring it back to "left-wing" alone? Quite frankly I think that this was one the cases in which per Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Closing_the_discussion ↗ a formal closure wasn't advisable, "left-wing to far left" is there since months and there seems to be consensus on that label.
:::Doesn't have an article =/= isn't well defined. I've included a "definition" column in the source review exactly for this reason, from which we can see that most of the scholars that deal with the topic in detail use the definition by Mudde and March. Nobody has refuted that in the RfC. I agree that right now we shouldn't use it since there is no article, but that is not what you wrote in the closure.
:::If you don't see a distinction between ideologies and political positions I'm sorry, but it's just your opinion. The infobox of political parties has two different parameters for ideologies and political positions and until the template isn't changed you should accept this as the community consensus on the matter... --<span style="color:#B20000;">'''Friniate'''</span> <span style="color:black; font-size:100%"> ✉ </span> 11:45, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
::::I think that "left wing" is the stable version, but as I said quite clearly and specifically in my close, I think that from the sources, "left wing" is too milquetoast and anodyne for this party. As I said, I think the community should decide between "far left" and "left wing populist".
::::I hope that when you move on from hectoring me for closing the discussion in a way that you don't like, you help us to make that decision.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>&nbsp;<small>T/C ↗</small> 12:10, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::* What you think about "left-wing" is irrelevant, sorry: ''Consensus is not determined by counting heads or counting votes, '''nor is it determined by the closer's own views about what action or outcome is most appropriate'''''
:::::* I've no intention to take part to a process in which the options are predetermined by you according to your personal opinions that contradict established community (and scholarly) consensus on the matter. You can't just say "I think that there is no difference between political positions and ideologies" and put it in you closure despite the fact that the community clearly has a different opinion (but scholars too: I can easily provide papers that discuss populism also in center-left or centrist parties). Until now you haven't been able to provide a policy-based argument for discarding entirely the "radical left" label and for considering the official classification by French authorities as a secondary source instead of a primary one. If this is your final comment on the matter I'm going to challenge the closure since it IMHO it is in clear breach of Wikipedia:Closing discussions ↗.
:::::--<span style="color:#B20000;">'''Friniate'''</span> <span style="color:black; font-size:100%"> ✉ </span> 12:44, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::Be my guest.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>&nbsp;<small>T/C ↗</small> 13:07, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Challenge to RfC closure



I've opened the thread at ANI ↗. Regards. --<span style="color:#B20000;">'''Friniate'''</span> <span style="color:black; font-size:100%"> ✉ </span> 16:13, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

:Well, I'd have liked very much to spare to everyone the closure review, but unfortunately you didn't give me much choice... --<span style="color:#B20000;">'''Friniate'''</span> <span style="color:black; font-size:100%"> ✉ </span> 11:48, 8 July 2026 (UTC)