User talk:Andy Dingley

Nomination of Bridge rail for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bridge rail is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridge rail until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Rolls-Royce C Range Diesels

Hi Andy

You may remember some years ago (2015?) we had a conversation about the correct title for Rolls-Royce C type diesels - "Range" or "Series". I did mange to find a photo on the www of an RR engine makes plate. This shows that they are "C Range". You can find the photo on the following page: https://www.trms.org.au/rm_engine_frame.htm

Regards Bruce

Speedy deletion nomination of Internally riffled boiler tubes

A tag has been placed on Internally riffled boiler tubes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022

Hello Andy Dingley,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

Suggestions:

There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

Reminders

Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023

Hello Andy Dingley,

Backlog

The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.

2022 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!

Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)

New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js

Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.

Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.

Reminders

Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023

Hello Andy Dingley,

Backlog

Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.

Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.

Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.

You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.

Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).

Reminders

Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord and #wikimedia-npp ^connect on IRC.
Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Maersk Hangzhou has an RfC

Maersk Hangzhou has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.

Camels

Hi you mentioned them twice with "Where do camels have teeth?", but fixed just the latter. Modocc (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry about this.

The thing with camels is about their teeth. There are a number of talmudic descriptions that get basic issues of camel dentition wrong (did no-one just go and look?) But they're obviously not kosher, because of the 'one sign' and also because they're listed as unclean. Other camelids, like llamas, come under the first part of this.

Giraffes are different. They've long been assumed to be kosher. Despite a popular kid's tale that they're not (I've never heard this myself). But they have fully cloven hooves and they chew the cud, so they ought to be. But do they really chew the cud? How?! Have you seen the neck on these things! So it wasn't until fairly recently (and the efforts of Zoo Rabbi) that it was confirmed that they really ought to be seen as kosher.

Then an idiot like me comes along, types the wrong word (repeatedly) and makes the whole thing even muddier. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Kindly refrain from making personal attacks like this. Another sign that you should not be editing the topic area whatsoever. By the way, I am not Russian. Mellk (talk) 10:40, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then why do you edit in such a biased manner? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:43, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I already provided my argument in the move discussion. You have zero arguments, except "I am right and everyone who disagrees with me is a Russian. By the way, I don't trust people based on their ethnic/national background". Mellk (talk) 10:44, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw it on my watchlist and I think that you (Andy) should take back that comment 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 10:53, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which one? The one that they're Russian? That's a shocking thing to say about someone, isn't it! Just why is that? You seem to be the one leaping to conclusions there. Or the simple fact that they're continuously edit-warring for a pro-Russian standpoint [1][2][3][4][5]. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:57, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is WP:COMMONAME. I mentioned this in the move discussion but you completely ignored this argument and are still trying to justify your personal attacks. Perhaps a topic ban is warranted. Mellk (talk) 10:59, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since you do not wish to retract that statement and you are arguing that I should not have this right based on what you think is my nationality, I am pinging Rsjaffe, who granted the right to me. Maybe you can explain more on why you do not trust Russians with enhanced rights to view private data. Mellk (talk) 11:51, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe my granting the permission was wrong, you can post at Wikipedia:Administrative action review. There you can explain why you believe @Mellk cannot be trusted with that permission. Continuing the argument here is counterproductive and could be construed as personal attacks. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:56, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies: What did I do?

Imagine being attacked and banned from the Teahouse all because you suggested an article be made. Disruption you say, Drmies? At this point, I can’t even LOOK at something on Wikipedia without getting reverted, blocked, accused of vandalism, forced to have sources for the smallest crap, everything’s gotta be notable! Let arrogant and sensitive people run a website, then expect rants like this. END OF DISCUSSION! 199.192.122.199 (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SOU 6910.

Ask this at the Teahouse because I’m banned from it and I was accused of trolling.

The BSFSRR runs along what used to be the Kentucky and Tennessee Railway, which hauled coal and lumber and was based in Stearns. One of the railway’s steam locomotives is number 10, and is the only ORIGINAL K&T steam loco preserved. 4501 (number 12) doesn’t count because it was bought by the railroad after being kicked off the Southern. Number 10 was used in excursion service by the Southern as number 6910 but experienced problems during the excursion and is now at the TVRM in pieces. Though the engine is somewhat obscure, should we get it to have it’s own article? 199.192.122.199 (talk) 13:43, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. Some relevant links:

Big South Fork Scenic Railway

Tennessee Valley Railroad Museum

Southern Railway 4501

Some of the questions to ask here would be:

Is an article justified by its value?
Is an article justified by the rules here?
Is an article possible to produce?

First of all, I'm not going to waste my time writing an article on something that isn't (by my own subjective rules) worth writing about. OK, I might do a stub to fill an obvious hole. Is this an interesting article that I can write? An engaging story behind it?

Then there are the general WP rules. Such as WP:GNG and WP:GOLDENRULE, "Articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic.". Can you find adequate sources to back this up?

Then there's the question of whether it's possible to produce this article, or to produce the article at the present moment. Can you find the source material you need? Or do you know that it exists, but it's only possible to access it through one expensive book that you can't get hold of right now. It is very common for you to know that something is worth writing, and even what the text should be, but you can't access the robust sourcing to convince others of this.

An article really needs to get past all three of these.

There has been some general agreement (at least within the relevant projects) that steam locos operational (or have been) in preservation are generally notable. For one thing, railway preservation is fond of documentation, so sourcing is rarely any problem. But in this case, even that fails as it hasn't been operated in preservation, nor is it likely to. The talk now is all 'cosmetic restoration', no more. It seems to have made one run in retirement, back in the steam era when this wasn't even particularly noteworthy, and even then it failed halfway.[6]

Is it interesting? Well it might be for a couple of reasons: firstly, did it play any important role in the Kentucky and Tennessee Railway? I can't see that, it was just one of several Mikados they had. Secondly, was it a technically interesting class? Again, no. Which is common in the US, as so many locos were built by the big makers like Baldwin to standard designs.

Is it possible to build an article? Barely. Commons has no section on it, just that one photo of it hiding in the shed. Web sources are an inline mention along with a dozen others on a now mostly dead website [7].

I think you might justify adding a section to Southern Railway 4501 as a sister engine. But that's about it.

Are there not some interesting loco types you could work with? They're usually a lot more interest than individual locos. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. 10 was built new for the K&T. 4501 was built new for the Southern but was sold to the K&T in 1948. Number 10 would be sold to the TVRM in 1965, according to Locomotive Wiki and the TVRM’s website, but on the day of it’s only excursion, 6910 suffered leaking boiler tubes and only made it into Cleveland before being withdrawn from service at Chattanooga. The engine now sits at the TVRM in pieces. 199.192.122.199 (talk) 04:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm not seeing much scope for an article here. No 10 would be:

Bought from Baldwins, worked for 40 years hauling coal. The one interesting thing it did in '65. Then it sat for 60 years in a museum, but not restored or working. Now it's not thought worthwhile restoring to service.

I can't see much else than that. Maybe there's a tale as to why it sat unused for so long. 44806 has something similar, but a more interesting story. The fact it sat broken in a dry museum for so long actually kept it in quite good order for when it was later fixed. Also the original fault was significant to this common and successful class, except that a fault in one factory's boilers caused this obscure problem to become common on their work (I think it's the only one surviving). So that's an article that can be expanded to something more.

All I can see as a peg to hang a story on for No 10 is that it was worked for most of its life at the same railway it started at. That's just not that unusual. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:14, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cylinders

Danners430 says they are unnecessary, please stop adding them back. 174.224.160.101 (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Danners430: is not the one edit-warring here, you are. Don't blame other people for your edits. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’re the one causing the problem, not me. I’m not blaming anyone. I’m just telling you what he said. 174.224.160.101 (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to start discussing this at Talk:USATC S200 Class, but since there's already a discussion here... @Andy Dingley shouldn't we keep consistency by removing the "outside" text everywhere? At the moment it does seem to just be a small subset of steam locomotive articles that lists the position of the cylinders. I only raise this because you added them back at the linked article, so I wanted to touch base instead of going back and forth :-) Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:46, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although come to think of it, given there's a disagreement and it spans a number of articles, I suppose it would be better at WikiProject Trains... I'll create a discussion there and ping the pair of you :-) Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:47, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains/Locomotives_task_force#Is_the_position_of_steam_loco_cylinders,_inside_/_outside,_important_and_worth_inclusion_in_the_infobox? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep... I think we both went to different talk pages but at the same time :D Ah well, happens... I've replied at the link above to find out which of the two discussions should be kept (to avoid splitting the discussion) Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:52, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation 2 closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

The existing Manual of Style and article titles contentious topic is amended, to narrow the scope to only apply to article titles and capitalisation. The contentious topic area is to be renamed "Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Article titles and capitalisation", and the exact scope is available at the final decision page.
The word limit restriction (discretionary) is added to the standard set of contentious topic restrictions for all contentious topics:
Uninvolved administrators may impose word limits on all participants in a discussion, or on individual editors across all discussions, within a specific contentious topic area. Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit. These restrictions must be logged and may be appealed in the same way as all contentious topic restrictions.
Dicklyon (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
The Arbitration Committee assumes the indefinite topic ban of Dicklyon. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
Dicklyon is indefinitely topic banned from challenging or requesting a review of any closure within the article titles and capitalisation contentious topic area, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
Cinderella157 (talk · contribs) and SMcCandlish (talk · contribs) are indefinitely topic banned from the article titles and capitalisation contentious topic area, broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
Cinderalla157, SMcCandlish, and Dicklyon are limited to 500 words in any discussion related to the article titles and capitalisation contentious topic area, broadly construed.
Hey man im josh (talk · contribs) is warned for edit warring.

For the Arbitration Committee, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 23:47, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation 2 closed

Apology

I just wanted to inform you that I sincerely apologize for deleting the cylinder location info in some of the locomotives articles, I saw your discussion on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains and I just wanted to let you both know that what I did was wrong and I should have known better. After reading what you both discussed on that page, I promise to both of you I won’t delete them ever again, I’m sorry for making a big thing of it. I hope you both can forgive me, I take responsibility for my mistake. 174.226.83.179 (talk) 01:54, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and thanks for the apology.

In the future though, this is why it's good to try and discuss stuff once you see there's opposition to it, rather than just pushing on. For one thing, it makes the cleanup afterwards smaller. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree. I was wrong when I did the revert, as per the discussion - I’d suggest not taking one editor’s word at face value after just one edit of a specific type… we can all make mistakes, so it’s always best to discuss.

We live, learn and move on :) Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:51, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol September 2025 Backlog drive

September 2025 Backlog Drive \| New pages patrol
On 1 September 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

YGM

Hello, Andy Dingley. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

The Kip ^(contribs) 15:29, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bandsaw box

I see that you recently added a Bibliography to Bandsaw box. It has been speedy delete nominated on [[WP:CSD#A7|A7]], which I deleted. I has no inline citations. Hope you can add some as you seem to have knowledge of the subject. — ERcheck (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TBH, I was wondering about nominating it for deletion under WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It's obviously a pass for WP:N, but does the world really need more bandsaw boxes? It's such a terrible article too. I just stuck the biblio list up because I could spit it out of my library catalogue database. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm..... {{subst:Proposed deletion|reason=reason for proposed deletion}} Seven days and done if no one objects. — ERcheck (talk) 01:18, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grenade

Hi there! I think I was a bit unclear in the split-request. Reading through the comments on the previous move-request,the consensus was that Grenade was to be kept as the main article about grenades, but that it currently has hand-grenades as priority topic. It was also suggested in the discussion that I'd split off the hand-grenade parts to a separate article in the same manner rifle-grenades has its own main article. As Blockhaj derailed the end of the discussion, I'd like for clarification of your position.

1 Are you opposed to have Hand-grenade being a main article with a summary in the article Grenade?
2 On a more general note, with an absolute majority of the edits on A being on the topic b which then becomes a separate article, is the best practice to keep the edit history with article A or article B with a split-note in the other, or is there a way to duplicate the edit history to both A and B?

respectfully /BP OMowe (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not strongly opposed to any changes here. I'm strongly opposed to anything resembling a merge with shell, on the basis of German etymology.

On the topic of grenades, I see hand grenade as being strongly the core of such an article. It has the historical primacy, it is the most common form of grenade, it is still largely the technical basis of other grenades. We should keep grenade coverage broad, to the point of covering hand grenades to the level that most readers will care about.

There are a large number of grenade articles. On that basis it's a bit pointless to oppose the creation of an article on hand grenades. But that's not a split – it would be better treated as a new article, for which an easy way to build much of it would be by copying (and a credit via edit summaries and the talk: page) the source of that content. We might then edit both and make one more detailed and even make the other less detailed. What level of detail is appropriate for a reader who wants to read just one article on grenades? There's probably scope for pruning some of the content that has migrated to hand grenade. But the point would be that we've not changed the scope of the grenade article: it still remains as grenades, largely thrown hand grenades. It still covers hand grenades, at least to the level that our hypothetical reader wanting to read just one article on grenades is interested in. Yes, this is duplication. That's not a problem. Yes, it's duplication in both reading content, and in edits (so we note this on the new article talk:). Neither is a problem. What we need to do is to deliver the best choices of scope for the relevant articles (defined by title and an abstract concept of scope, even if we never write that down explicitly). Then deliver the best set of content at each article, as separate problems for each article, according to what their separate scopes require. What we shouldn't do is generate a list of sub-factoids, then allocate each in turn to different articles, avoiding overlap (an editing algorithm I've seen advocated here). That doesn't deliver the best readable and relevant articles. Which is, in the end, what we're supposed to be about.

I'll copy this over to the article talk: too. Probably better to continue there. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:28, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems we have a general agreement on both topic and purpose here, and the details are indeed better handled on the talk page. Cheers! BP OMowe (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Featherless biped" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Featherless biped has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 30 § Featherless biped until a consensus is reached. -1ctinus📝🗨 14:21, 30 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. FYI I found your participation via XTools.Czarking0 (talk) 02:49, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Archives

Nomination of Bridge rail for deletion

Rolls-Royce C Range Diesels

Speedy deletion nomination of Internally riffled boiler tubes

New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022

New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023

New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023

Maersk Hangzhou has an RfC

Camels

Personal attacks

Drmies: What did I do?

SOU 6910.

Cylinders

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation 2 closed

Apology

New pages patrol September 2025 Backlog drive

YGM

Bandsaw box

Grenade

"Featherless biped" listed at Redirects for discussion

Survey