User talk:S Marshall

Please don't use templates on this page. Just write me a message.

Since this is my talk page, I archive it to suit me; this means archives may be reorganised to group material by content instead of by date.

This is S Marshall's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

July music

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 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)[reply]

Alanscottwalker and Alpha3031 opined that workshopping on the talk page wasn't necessary. I thought I'd see if they were correct. (They weren't: I was reverted almost instantly.)—S Marshall T/C 17:06, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm? I think I argued that the policy is already 'clear' when inline cites are required (which generally leads to no change is necessary), not that I was specifically addressing whatever change you would like to make, nor how you should go about that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Doris Gercke

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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 ^{[talk] [OMT]} 02:26, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by this request. What I found was consensus to overturn the 2023 RFC but no consensus about what to replace it with, and I did say so rather clearly.—S Marshall T/C 07:19, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Quoting from your close: "There is, simply put, no consensus about what to do ... This RfC doesn't resolve it." On this, we'd agree. In my view, the RfC showed no consensus for any of the presented options. But to then conclude from that no consensus that "The 2023 RfC is quashed and set aside"—again, the status quo for two years as established by previous consensus—was a surprise. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 08:14, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes: This is WP:BARTENDER. The 2023 wording doesn't enjoy community support. If I allowed it to continue then that would be a backdoor option 2 outcome, which the community has rejected.—S Marshall T/C 08:29, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:BARTENDER says in part that a bartender's close in a discussion occurs where there is an initial proposal to take some action, and a discussion in which there is a clear consensus to make a change from the status quo, but not to make the specific change originally proposed (emphasis mine). I don't see how you came to the conclusion that there was consensus for a change from the status quo; indeed, you say there is no consensus that any change is needed. A two year old RFC is certainly a status quo ante; it's not like this was a hot off the press decision. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 19:26, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - HouseBlaster said it better than I could; thank you. I'll only add that there being no firm consensus for option 2 ≠ the community "has rejected" it. Indeed, your close noted that there was support for that option, but not enough for a consensus. To me, the current RfC shows no consensus to change the current wording. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 20:41, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      - If that previous RfC had been a slam dunk clear outcome, then yes, I agree that it should have survived this; but it wasn't. It was an extremely marginal call that wouldn't have survived a close review. Fundamentally, what's written in that MOS page isn't a fair reflection of what the community feels about this, and to leave it in place after all that discussion is not the right outcome.
        I'm going to decline to revise that close. Close review is thataway.—S Marshall T/C 20:52, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        I definitely think this belongs at AN, but I am currently away and don't want to try to AN post from mobile. Ed, if you are able to make that post, I'd be grateful. I'll end by saying to you, S Marshall, that I have a deep respect for your closing abilities, and that is not changed by the fact I think this one was wrong—thank you for all you do /gen :) House Blaster (talk • he/they) 22:02, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        
        You want me to start it? I'm very happy to!—S Marshall T/C 22:18, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        +1, if it wasn't already clear I also have no personal animus. However, I do unfortunately have to push back again on your thoughts on the previous RfC. That you would have closed it differently is immaterial, as you did not close it nor did anyone bring forward a formal appeal, and using that view to enact a backdoor option 1 doesn't seem appropriate. I've listed this for review at AN and look forward to your contributions there. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 22:28, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much as I anticipated: the review was listed around midnight in the UK, and got an initial rush of overturners. Now the Brits are coming home from work, we'll get the endorsers.—S Marshall T/C 17:14, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

August music

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

---->
A ghastly usability catastrophe

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

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)[reply]

The rule preventing re-arguing the AfD does exist, and it's normally respected, but on this occasion the community set that rule aside. This occasionally happens when the community judges that to be in the encyclopaedia's best interests.—S Marshall T/C 23:37, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it wasn't respected by all, but there was no agreement to set it aside, and thus this punishes those who respected the rule. Ike Lek (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does, and yes, in that respect it's not very fair. I do see that. I still think my close accurately summarises what the community decided.—S Marshall T/C 00:13, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is unclear what the DRV is closed as anyway. Your edit summary says "no consensus, but redirect", which seems like a pretty strong unilateral decision to ignore procedure. I get it is a difficult close that is bound to get pushback regardless of how it was closed. I'm not unsympathetic, but it needs to be clearer than this. This situation of such high contention does not seem like the best time to depart so far from the frameworks we have in place.

-

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

As much as I tend to be an inclusionist, I didn't participate in the original AfD because I couldn't find a justification for keeping the article that I actually believed in and wasn't just for the sake of arguing. I don't actually disagree with the redirect outcome being a good place to end up, but every step along the way continuously rewarded those who use underhanded tactics to abuse the systems we rely on. This is the reverse for me of what happened here, where I disagreed with the final outcome, but care about upholding the process even when I don't agree with the results. WP:IAR is very important, but, as I'm sure you know, needs to be handled with care, and rarely should be a unilateral action from an admin on this scale. Frustratingly, as in many areas of the world, sometimes bureaucratic inefficiency is necessary to prevent exploitation from bad actors, which I believe to be currently widespread in AfDs. Ike Lek (talk) 00:51, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's unclear? There's no consensus to overturn but the community's clearly minded to redirect this content and anyone can do that.
Ironically, in 2009 when I'd only been a Wikipedian for about three years and I too was ideologically inclusionist, it was one of Stifle's DRV closes that taught me to ignore process. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 24, if you're curious or bored.—S Marshall T/C 01:05, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, it just says "closed" and not a result, which is a bit unclear. Secondly, a DRV cannot reflect what the community is "clearly minded" to, as it only represents a small subsection of the community who participate in DRV, and an even smaller subsection who misuse the forum to continue arguing the AfD. If we are going to have discussion to build consensus, it should be known to everyone involved that is what is happening. For instance, I couldn't claim there is community consensus to delete Podpolichno because I got five people to agree in the talk page of Aponia itzalis because that isn't the right place to build consensus for that topic, and those wishing to keep the article wouldn't be reasonably expected to know to participate in that discussion in that forum. If new consensus is being actively built, everyone involved should know that is what is going on. I'm not saying this is true, but maybe those not wanting a redirect were simply more respectful of the DRV rules? The way to account for this sort of possibility is to make sure everyone has the opportunity to participate in a forum where they know the potential outcomes being discussed. Using a discussion of whether a close is proper to determine a greater consensus on the article subject is like electing a politician for a second term in a challenge to the legitimacy of their first election. Ike Lek (talk) 01:36, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there isn't a two-word pithy summary in bold. People just have to read the whole paragraph.
I think that's a representative discussion. I think all the reasoned viewpoints of interested parties are fully expressed and taken into account. At some point we have to stop discussing and make a decision.—S Marshall T/C 01:42, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[Later] I've been thinking about what you meant by necessary bureaucratic inefficiency. Do you mean what MeatballWiki calls FairProcess, or are you more concerned about evil people misusing our processes to engineer the outcomes they want?—S Marshall T/C 01:27, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A little of both. "Evil" is a strong word here, but misguidedly destructive, sure. Incentive structures do matter. I think what is most important to me is everyone knowing what is actually up for discussion. You cannot hold a fair election through an impromptu poll of a group of active protesters because it would have a significantly different result from a planned election process where everyone knows they have a chance to vote in advance and can choose to show up. Ike Lek (talk) 01:39, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's interesting. I tend to disagree that there are shadowy forces of destruction at work but the idea of notifying relevant people in a planned election process is a new one. Are you suggesting advance notification? "An AfD on this article will start in 3 days. Please prepare your sources and arguments now." Might improve decision making at that.—S Marshall T/C 01:47, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call them "shadowy forces of destruction", just people who have the misguided belief that things would be better if they had full control, and will do whatever it takes to get the outcomes they want. The type of people who believe they would be "benevolent dictators" if they just had all the power and don't see the inherent flaws in that regardless of their good intent.

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

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

I just saw this. I don't see how the community set anything aside. I opposed the AFD, and spoke at DRV. However I refrained from entering new evidence, because AFD is there to look at the close, and not to relitigate. If there's consensus to set this aside (where did that discussion happen?) can you reopen the DRV so those of us who were following guidelines can make the opposite case? Or start a pro-forma AFD. I certainly don't think people should be reverting the reversions of redirect, without starting another AFD on the subject. Nfitz (talk) 17:32, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nfitz: Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#Your thoughts, please.—S Marshall T/C 22:55, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No one else seems to have thoughts. And nothing on the talk page. I really don't see much alternative other than reverting the redirect and adding the sources raised in the AFD. Nfitz (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you put something on the talk page, and the people insisting on keeping it redirected don't respond adequately because their preferred version is in place, then you have the moral high ground. —Cryptic 01:33, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
^^ This.—S Marshall T/C 06:51, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We could start a discussion in a third location (4th if you count the now-closed DRV). Though I hear that Wikipedia is WP:NOTBURO. Nfitz (talk) 22:09, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Hi David, and welcome to my talk page!
I'm British. The land I live on was stolen from the Vikings by the Normans. The Vikings stole it from the Saxons who stole it from the Ancient Britons and so on right the way back to the Beaker People about whom we know virtually nothing that you can't tell from pottery. We've stolen nearly half the world, and then given most of it back---slightly broken.
I do know what a monologue is in comedy. English law and broadcasting practice would prevent a political monologue in a current affairs programme. There would have to be someone else to challenge and give balance.—S Marshall T/C 07:50, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I wrote about U.S., I was indeed thinking about the various conquests of the land that is currently Britain.

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

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

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

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

There was nothing remotely unusual about Kimmel's show that night except that Trump used his power to try to silence Kimmel.--David Tornheim (talk) 09:05, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it these programmes involve interviews and the free exchange of opinions about current affairs? They're not sketch shows. The Pythons were absurdist humour without current affairs. We do have sketch shows about current affairs, but they wouldn't be mixed with interviews or serious political points, and they would mostly comprise satire. No TV presenter would ever have free rein to give us their personal opinions about politics direct to camera.
In India the media landscape is even more alien. Because of the issues described in our article on paid news in India, Indian broadcasters don't disclose when they've been paid or what they've been paid for. The Jimmy Kimmel business would be hard to follow for Indians too, but for very different reasons.—S Marshall T/C 09:25, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]