I'd like to follow up on the topic related to theDuchy of Poland stub article, which was converted into a redirect to theHistory of Poland during the Piast dynasty article. I would like to restore and expand this article because from around 1031—1076, 1079–1138, and 1138–1227 the Duchy of Poland was in existence when the Kingdom of Poland was fragmented. Also, theCivitas Schinesghe article, which describes the earliest years of the Piast dynasty would only pertain to 966-1000, after which we see clear historical references to the Prince/Duke of Poland or Principality/Duchy of Poland. Please advise if I can revert your change to redirect and start to expand the Duchy of Poland article.E-960 (talk)15:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@E-960: Improvements are always welcome!Shhhnotsoloud (talk)09:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions toRóbert Gragger. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time becauseit has no sources.I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information atHelp:Unreviewed new page.When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back.Significa liberdade(she/her) (talk)20:48, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirectAnglican Church has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 16 § Anglican Church until a consensus is reached. Notifying previous commenters on old RfD. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 06:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You probably already know this but it appears that NmWT hasrenamed themselves and retired. Not exactly the outcome I wanted but I thought it may be of interest to you in case you didn't know.AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk)01:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!Shhhnotsoloud (talk)16:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

so, I'm working on a project that involves a lot of navigating from near-miss to intended articles via dab links, and I'm coming to realize that I generally like how dab pages are being written but generally dislike how hatnotes are being written.

Ugh! This type of notice needs to be as short as possible to be as sweet as possible; pointless duplication isn't as bad as it would be in the article body... no, it's worse!

I've been trying to trim the bloat and sprawl as I go, and the workarounds I've come up with are very much along the same lines as yours - stumbling upon one of your

ones was particularly nice, because I'd been intending to use that phrasing for a while but, never having seen anyone else do so, never quite had the nerve to. Much appreciated!

For multiples, my current favourite pattern is to use{{for-text}} like so (real cross-linked use cases this time):

(Heh, looks like I missed the title markup there, but never mind, for these intents and purposes.) It's about as short as the grammatical structure allows, and what may be even more important is that the information structure is consistent that way. I suspect the vast majority of users are familiar enough with Wikipedia hatnotes that they rarely really read them, but instead take in the crucial words, meaning "album" and "film" in the first case, at a glance, and mentally discard the rest as filler. This is facilitated by reproducing the placement and punctuation predetermined by the qualified "(album)" link for the unqualified one, IMO.(ETA: For applying this to a more complex case, seeFuneral.)

Anyway, to get to my main point, my impression is that bad hatnotes along the lines of my first "2024 Some Artist album" example are as common as they are not only because editors adopt each others' bad habits, but also because there are underlying systemic issues. Like,MOS:DAB explicitly says to "avoid descriptions that simply repeat information given in the link", using

• "Dark Star" (song), a songN

as a how-not-to example.WP:HATNOTE similarly starts out by saying stuff like "should generally be as concise as possible" and "lead text, not the hatnote, should explain what the article is about", but then uses

as its first how-to example, instead of actually implementing those ideas and reducing it to

Now, with phrases as short as these, even I don't believe it makes much of a difference in an article. But in a guideline, the bar should be set a bit higher, and first laying out what "should" be and not be, only to then follow up with examples that don't really adhere to those "shoulds", strikes me as, um, sub-optimal?

That said, I reckon at the true root of the problem are the templates themselves. The{{for}}-type requires a description, and when none is needed, placeholder phrases like "other uses" are inserted. The{{distinguish}}-type doesn't allow for a description, so when one is needed, it has to be added via the freeform "text" variants and parameters.

It stands to reason that this is precisely the wrong way 'round, surely. "For" is typically used for stuff that has the same name, and so needs a qualified title (like "Turkey (bird)"), which takes care of the description. "Distinguish" is typically used for stuff that has a merely similar name, and so doesn't need and therefore doesn't have that conveniently descriptive qualifier built in. Plus, mentioning the potential for "confusion" in the latter's very wording, but then failing to reduce it by supplying additional information, seems outright wrong-headed.

The sense I'm getting from all this is that people somehow settled on those phrasings early on, and then let their respective grammatical structures decide for them where information should and shouldn't go. Thus putting the cart before the horse, as it were.

Finally and even more fundamentally, I don't think I agree with the implicit notion that because hatnotes are part of proper articles, they need to be in proper prose, as opposed to the fragmentary style that's fine for dab pages. Functionally, hatnotes work like miniature dab sections, and by that reckoning, the information should be presented in a more rather than less compressed form than on a full page.

Okay, I think that's everything I meant to cover - here's hoping I had you mostly nodding in agreement, as opposed to nodding off! :P

-2A02:560:5829:B000:99D:3DCE:4DAE:FDB (talk)22:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Yes I do agree with everything you say. It's just that trying to change guidance by consensus is painful and sometimes has unintended consequences, so like you I proceed in accordance with guidelines but conservatively, or minimalistically if you like. Personally I would rarely use the 2nd parameter of{{about}}, but very often use thetext= facility in{{distinguish}}. Happy editing - and I would urge you to operate from a registered account rather than as an IP editor, which would give you more credibility and make it easier for you to receive Talk page comments: seeWikipedia:Why create an account?.Shhhnotsoloud (talk)08:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you revert your movehere? Marcus Octavius the tribune of 133 BC is only marginally better known than his homonymhere. There is no primary topic for this name.T8612(talk)19:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But I was guided byMarcus Octavius (name) which specifically says: "The most known member was the tribunus plebis in 133 BC...". So either he is the most known member, and his article is the primary topic; or there is no primary topic and the (name) page is moved to the base name. Is that latter option what you advise? The situation where the base name is a redirect to one or other of those pages is unacceptable.Shhhnotsoloud (talk)08:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is the most known member for the specialists of the period, not for the average Wikipedia reader, for whom they all are nonentities. There are very few Romans of the Republic that are primary topics, because they had a very limited number of first names, and things rapidly get confusing if we don't have (magistracy+year) after their names. In the case of Marcus Octavius, there is a homonym, also tribune of the plebs, who passed a law on the same topic a generation later. The (name) page should be turned into a disamb page.T8612(talk)10:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@T8612:. Done Thanks for your help.Shhhnotsoloud (talk)11:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Kitchener%E2%80%94Conestoga
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Kitchener_South%E2%80%94Hespeler

Not much this time, but it is the pattern.The Banner talk12:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner:. I know. So fix them!Shhhnotsoloud (talk)12:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I leave cleaning up the mess to you, as you created them.The Banner talk12:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner: I did not create them.Shhhnotsoloud (talk)12:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not the original dab-page, but with your revert you at least recreated the mess.The Banner talk12:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you removed "Wisconsin" fromJuneau County. US counties also include the state name, perWP:USPLACE. Thanks.Magnolia677 (talk)17:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: Sorry - fixed now. Thanks for pointing it out.Shhhnotsoloud (talk)19:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert -https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMy_God%2C_my_God%2C_why_hast_Thou_forsaken_me%3F&diff=1223178101&oldid=1223167436 ?Christian75 (talk)00:12, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Christian75: My mistake, I'm sorry.Shhhnotsoloud (talk)07:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The articleBank station (disambiguation) has beenproposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic redirect points to an article with a hatnote to the only other use.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may bedeleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the{{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in youredit summary or onthe article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing{{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop theproposed deletion process, but otherdeletion processes exist. In particular, thespeedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, andarticles for deletion allows discussion to reachconsensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to thehistory of each individual page for details. Thanks,FastilyBot (talk)10:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shhhnotsoloud. I saw you converted Frederick Newton (disambiguation) to a dab page and I had to look at what was I thinking! I think I intended to redirect it toFred Newton, as I had added another article there,Frederick Robert Newton. That article was missing from the hatnote atFrederick Newton. It is now missing from the dab page you created. I didn't want to arbitrarily overwrite your change, just wanted to let you know my mistake. Thanks.Tassedethe (talk)23:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi@Tassedethe:. I hadn't finished my train of thought either. I had intended to merge/redirectFred Newton toFrederick Newton (disambiguation). That OK with you?Shhhnotsoloud (talk)08:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem.Tassedethe (talk)14:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, as the proposer I've replied to your comment on the above. ThanksBillsmith60 (talk)13:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shhhnotsoloud. Can you please explain in further detail your edithere? I'm not saying it's wrong, just that I didn't understand it. I had thought my previous edit had been a straightforward application ofWP:ONEOTHER.Arbitrarily0 ^(talk)23:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello@Arbitrarily0:. "One other" disambiguation pages are quite common: seeCategory:Disambiguation pages containing one non-primary topic. You can't just redirect them to the primary topic because the primary topic isn't a disambiguation page and you're making a redirect which helps no-one and clutters the Search system. They should instead be deleted. What you should do is tag them with{{one other topic}}, and then optionally apply a{{proposed deletion}} tag or take itWP:AFD. Pages inCategory:Disambiguation pages containing one non-primary topic get the attention of editors like me, and those pages will eventually be deleted or expanded.Shhhnotsoloud (talk)07:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the love of God, stop changing my Zonca page to a disambiguation page. It is INTENDED to be a surname page. The inclusion of just ONE other article doesn't justify the change. That is the way I intended to make it and that is how it's supposed to be. Stop changing it.OmniFrieza994 (talk)19:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OmniFrieza994: If God had an opinion it would be that He wants you to read the Talk page,Talk:Zonca, and discuss it there.Shhhnotsoloud (talk)12:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in thisanonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on itsMeta page and view itsprivacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk)19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirectKarhusaari (island) has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 6 § Karhusaari (island) until a consensus is reached.JIP |Talk12:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on itsMeta page and view itsprivacy statement.

Take the surveyhere.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk)00:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the call to move this one... seems like there was very clear consensus to not move the article. I know it'sWP:NOTVOTE butdouble the amount of discussion participants expressed "oppose" views versus those who supported, most expressing very logical reasons for their opposition.RachelTensions (talk)16:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RachelTensions: "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view." (Wikipedia:Consensus). Yours was actually the only Support opinion with any basis in guidance/policy.Shhhnotsoloud (talk)09:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I might not be the most experienced in dab pages, but am I right in thinking this has a pretty clear primary topic and should be moved toCorvus Corax (disambiguation)? I'm asking you because this is your area more than mine - I may enjoy finding articles that should go on a disambiguation page, but I'm still learning the finer nuances of how we title them or determine primary topics.GreenLipstickLesbian (talk)20:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello@GreenLipstickLesbian: thanks for asking me. I think it's OK as it is. Have a look atWP:SMALLDETAILS. The scientific name for the raven has corax as uncapitalised. I would just change the hatnote atCommon raven to target the disambiguation page instead of the band.Shhhnotsoloud (talk)21:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look, and yeah that makes sense, and thank you so much for the explanation. I'll go and modify the hatnote though, thanks you the idea! Happy editing!GreenLipstickLesbian (talk)21:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleList of pre-nominal letters (Sweden) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should bedeleted.

The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pre-nominal letters (Sweden) 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 until the discussion has finished.

––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)}16:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been forced to revert to your edit to the page “Rugby union in the United States” in which you changed it to say “For another sport” (Rugby League) as both of these sports are part of Rugby Football. Rugby union and rugby league are both quite similar, but have a few different rules.I recommend you read a Wikipedia page about the comparison of Rugby League and Rugby UnionServite et contribuere (talk)02:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Servite et contribuere: It's nothing to do with rugby, it's to do with style. It's repetitive and clumsy to say "For Rugby, see Rugby"; it's better to say "For another thing, see Rugby".Shhhnotsoloud (talk)18:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you didn’t know that Rugby is actually made of 2 different types of sports. When you search Rugby, it could mean eitherServite et contribuere (talk)00:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s like when you search for “Hockey in the United States” it redirects to “Ice Hockey in the United States”, would it be stupid to say: “For another Sport, see Field Hockey” when you searched for “Hockey”? “Hockey” usually means “Ice Hockey” but could mean “Field Hockey”Servite et contribuere (talk)03:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello Shhhnotsoloud, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on thisseasonal occasion. Spread theWikiLove by wishing another user aMerry Christmas and aHappy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing, Abishe (talk)23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk)23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with solving the 439 links to disambiguation pages you created with this revert.The Banner talk22:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner: You and I have had this conversation before. I didn't create them. You can't fix broken links by ignoring article title conventions. Direct your ire to@Graham11:.Shhhnotsoloud (talk)22:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see:Template talk:Canadian election result#Edit request: NDP.Shhhnotsoloud (talk)23:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For your information: you (re-)created the links to disambiguation pages. So now it is up to you to clean up the mess. It does not fly to hide behind another editor who messes up.The Banner talk23:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner: For your information: I know I (re-)created the links, by undoing your bad edit. Let me be clear about this because you don't appear to be listening, and this is the second time your actions have created a problem that I have reverted. When an editor in good faith performs a page move that creates a disambiguation page with links, either those links need to be fixed (which you and others atWP:DPL valiantly do), or the page move/s that created the page with incorrect links need to be reverted. In this case you did neither, but blanked and redirected the page in an entirely inappropriate way. You created a situation whereNew Democratic Party of Quebec redirected toNew Democratic Party of Quebec (2014) which (a) is an inappropriate way to have page titles redirect, and (b) blanked a valid disambiguation page purposefully created because of an ambiguous term. You might not agree with what@Graham11: did but your solution was not appropriate and I reverted it. Again, if you've got a problem with that editor who you think "messed up" then take it up with them, not me.Shhhnotsoloud (talk)10:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix the links to disambiguation pages that you deliberately created in the following templates:

1. Template:Quebec provincial political parties
2. Template:Quebec NDP leaders
3. Template:1985 Quebec general election/Dorion
4. Template:1989 Quebec general election/Dorion
5. Template:1989 Quebec general election/Rosemont
6. Template:1976 Quebec general election/Laurier
7. Template:1976 Quebec general election/Mercier
8. Template:1985 Quebec general election/Richelieu
9. Template:1992 Quebec provincial by-elections/Anjou
10. Template:1994 Quebec general election/Saint-Jean
11. Template:1994 Quebec provincial by-elections/Saint-Jean
12. Template:2018 Quebec general election/Saint-Jérôme
13. Template:2018 Quebec general election/Sherbrooke
14. Template:2018 Quebec general election/Taschereau
15. Template:2018 Quebec general election/Ungava
16. Template:2018 Quebec general election/Verdun
17. Template:1985 Quebec general election/Brome-Missisquoi
18. Template:1985 Quebec general election/Crémazie
19. Template:1985 Quebec general election/LaFontaine
20. Template:1985 Quebec general election/Mercier
21. Template:1985 Quebec general election/Mégantic-Compton
22. Template:1985 Quebec general election/Nicolet
23. Template:1985 Quebec general election/Rosemont
24. Template:1985 Quebec general election/Terrebonne
25. Template:1985 Quebec general election/Viau
26. Template:1986 Quebec provincial by-elections/Saint-Laurent
27. Template:1989 Quebec general election/Crémazie
28. Template:1989 Quebec general election/Gouin
29. Template:1989 Quebec general election/Hochelaga-Maisonneuve
30. Template:1989 Quebec general election/Hull
31. Template:1989 Quebec general election/LaFontaine
32. Template:1989 Quebec general election/Laurier
33. Template:1989 Quebec general election/Masson
34. Template:1989 Quebec general election/Mercier
35. Template:1989 Quebec general election/Notre-Dame-de-Grâce
36. Template:1989 Quebec general election/Orford
37. Template:1989 Quebec general election/Verdun
38. Template:1994 Quebec general election/Anjou
39. Template:1994 Quebec general election/Gouin
40. Template:1994 Quebec general election/Hochelaga-Maisonneuve
41. Template:1994 Quebec general election/Laurier-Dorion
42. Template:1994 Quebec general election/Mercier
43. Template:1994 Quebec general election/Rousseau
44. Template:2018 Quebec general election/Acadie
45. Template:2018 Quebec general election/Beauharnois
46. Template:2018 Quebec general election/Blainville
47. Template:2018 Quebec general election/Borduas
48. Template:2018 Quebec general election/Bourassa-Sauvé

You recreated the links, do not come with aWikipedia:My little brother did it-type of excuse.The Banner talk12:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Enough with the attitude.Shhhnotsoloud (talk)13:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You better start fixing those templates. After all, you re-created them. And there is no doubt about that.WP:CLEANBEFOREYOUGO.The Banner talk16:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for everything you do. —Alalch E.23:01, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The articleEluned Morgan (disambiguation) has beenproposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic redirect points to an article with a hatnote to the only other use.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may bedeleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the{{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in youredit summary or onthe article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing{{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop theproposed deletion process, but otherdeletion processes exist. In particular, thespeedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, andarticles for deletion allows discussion to reachconsensus for deletion.PK2 (talk;contributions)01:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just want to let you know that I reverted the move ofHouxi per request atWP:RM/TR, just in case you want to tweak the prod atHouxi (disambiguation). -Station1 (talk)04:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - thanks for your work on An t-Eilean. So appreciate it. Is there any way you could go in and correct my name - it is spelt Nicholas Osborne not Nicolas Osbourne. Many thanks!173.93.34.58 (talk)14:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I corrected 2 typos.Shhhnotsoloud (talk)19:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirectJohn Sumpter (MP) has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 14 § John Sumpter (MP) until a consensus is reached.Leyo17:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shhh... You recently removed a hatnote we'd placed onDelta Sigma Chi, as the related "About" link we had offered was a redlink. Indeed you are correct; per WP guidelines, hatlinks should not include redlinks.

Previously, that second group was on our radar, which is why we made the hatnote in the first place. We hadn't yet written that article but it appears to warrant one and the redlink was in anticipation of this. Since you are interested in DAB pages and linking, I thought I would inquire: How would you then suggest we note the existence of other, identically-named fraternities or sororities, where there isn't (yet) a WP article?

The Fraternity and Sorority Project has recently been advocating for deletion of watchlist articles which have poor sourcing, even where they meet our standard bar for inclusion. Normally, the only fraternity or sorority articles we support are for those groups that have existed for ten years or more, with at least three chapters having been installed, and with at least one outside reference to perhaps a university portal, or inclusion in a valid third-party source. There are exceptions for certain notable local chapters (longer tenure, property owning...), but the vast majority of "locals" do not meet our guidelines, all derived from Wikipedia's general notability guidance.

With the hatnote out of bounds, I thought, perhaps the following EFN would work; in your opinion, ought this be in the lede, or elsewhere, or would you suggest another way to clarify?

{{EFN|Delta Sigma Chi may also refer to a non-affiliated Latino, multicultural sorority formed in 1996 at the [[New York City College of Technology|NYC College of Technology]]. It had been a founding member of the [[National Multicultural Greek Council|NMGC]] and is now independent.}}

There was a third group, formerly a Latinomen's organization and now co-educational, which we believe has hadtwo chapters, originating at Cal Long Beach in 1987 and which is unaffiliated with the other two, larger organizations. We didn't hatlink them, as they hadn't yet risen to meet our consensus bar of notability and appear to be sputtering along.

Rounding out our research, there is a fourth group, a local at Heidelberg University in Ohio, which was formed in 1962. It may warrant its own WP page, as a stable, 60-year old local which is recognized by their campus, but that article has not yet been written.

Ours is a very active project group, and we work by consensus. So I'm reaching out to you for an opinion since you are a serious WP editor, interested in this sort of structural discussion.

Cordially,Jax MN (talk)19:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello@Jax MN: thank you for your note. I think your suggestion is very good – it's exactly the approach I used atPeter Davies (rugby). I used{{NoteTag}} to give it a bit more visibility. Happy editing!Shhhnotsoloud (talk)08:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your note asking to be pinged on theRfD close. I did not close it, but it has been closed. Jay 💬10:20, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The articleZubří (disambiguation) has beenproposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:ONEOTHER since 2023

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may bedeleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the{{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in youredit summary or onthe article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing{{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop theproposed deletion process, but otherdeletion processes exist. In particular, thespeedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, andarticles for deletion allows discussion to reachconsensus for deletion.Ivey (talk -contribs)22:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this list must be severely trimmed. Your opinion? --Altenmann>talk17:53, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello@Altenmann:. I don't really have an opinion to be honest.Shhhnotsoloud (talk)17:58, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta give props to you for improving the translations in the article. Looks a lot cleaner!Rockfighterz M (talk)00:21, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You tagged this as G14, but it had incoming links. It was then deleted. I've restored it. While there are incoming links, shouldn't this be maintained until those links are changed? -UtherSRG(talk)15:13, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@UtherSRG: Thank you for spotting that: I usually fix any links before I nominate it. They're fixed now. Perhaps you could re-delete it. Thanks,Shhhnotsoloud (talk)15:46, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -UtherSRG(talk)23:08, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find the distinguish tags I added to the two Catholic high schools in the eastern half of Pennsylvania with the same name (although one recently closed) to be easily confused and worth distinguishing. Especially for users who may be searching for these schools viewing sports records.BigCheddah (talk)00:46, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirectPeripheral unit has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 21 § Peripheral unit until a consensus is reached.older ≠wiser15:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In {surname} pages we do not split masculine and feminine lists of Russian-language surnames, because quite often in non-Russian sources, there used to be a sexist habit (sadly, still observed) to convert the surnames of women into masculine format: "miss Irina Kotov". Therefore, sorting by given name makes it easier to identify the person. --Altenmann>talk

@Altenmann: OK, thanks.Shhhnotsoloud (talk)09:02, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shhhnotsoloud, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion ofAllergin, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Page is not a disambiguation page, or disambiguates two or more extant pages. You may wish to review theCriteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you.CoconutOctopustalk13:49, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you@CoconutOctopus: but it doesn't disambiguate anything, because "allergin" is not mentioned at either of the two target pages. Both entries are therefore invalid perMOS:DABMENTION and would be deleted, leaving a blank page, hence my G14 request.Shhhnotsoloud (talk)13:56, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've gone ahead and boldly changed to a redirect toallergen as a misspelling; hopefully that's a solution that works!CoconutOctopustalk13:59, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw you made useful changes to Ankh-Morpork City Watch, can you advise why

works yet

doesn't?Halbared (talk)18:59, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello@Halbared: It's the format of the hatnote I was correcting, rather than the content.

''See also: [[Discworld (world)#Sapient species|Undead (Discworld)]]''

isn't good because it doesn't use the correct template, and it's piped, which is misleading. The correct version would be:

{{See also|Discworld (world)#Sapient species}}

You could replace "Sapient species" with "Undead" if that's better. I hope that helps.Shhhnotsoloud (talk)17:58, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you foryour contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits toGediminas's Cap, please use thepreview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging uprecent changes and thepage history, as well as helping preventedit conflicts. Below the edit box is aShow preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact thehelp desk for assistance.Thank you.  Sumanuil._{(talk to me)}20:28, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

tangentially related to this, i'm gonna point out thatmassxfd is a tool that exists, and is convenient for nomming multiple redirectsconsarn_{(talck)(contirbuton s)}20:33, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Consarn: Thank youShhhnotsoloud (talk)20:38, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sumanuil: Why did you think it was necessary to post this?Shhhnotsoloud (talk)20:38, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because you "corrected" several file names in the gallery.  Sumanuil._{(talk to me)}23:19, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sumanuil: Sorry about that, and although I don't think the uw-preview template was strictly necessary, thank you for pointing it out.Shhhnotsoloud (talk)09:36, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of flooding RfD with many similar nominations, use the scriptWP:MASSXFD to make one large nomination. Alternatively, you can use the instructions for multi-RfDs inWP:RFD#How to list a redirect for discussion.I am bad at usernames (talk |contribs)20:41, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@I am bad at usernames: As you can see, if you had waited a few minutes, I combined them. I do have some experience at RfD, but thank you for the reminder.Shhhnotsoloud (talk)20:45, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm so used to seeing valid G14 nominations from you that I hesitated more than once before declining your nomination ofUsz (disambiguation). Am I wrong, or was this a rare oversight on your part? Either way, many thanks for all your good work. Regards,Justlettersandnumbers (talk)17:14, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Justlettersandnumbers: and@Duckmather: thank you.Shhhnotsoloud (talk)17:23, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for your contributions. I note your recent revert atAmerican Pharaoh.

This is textbook R from misspelling. A one-sentence mention of a television episode (which itself does not appear to meetWP:N) does not warrant removing the primary redirect. Can you elaborate on why you think there is no primary topic? 19:41, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

The redirectAmerican Pharaoh (documentary) exists (and there is mention of it at the target) and while it does it creates an ambiguity. I wouldn't object toAmerican Pharaoh redirecting toAmerican Pharoah so long as there was a disambiguation hatnote there, but that's not what you did.Shhhnotsoloud (talk)19:47, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirectAmerican Pharaoh (documentary) has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 6 § American Pharaoh (documentary) until a consensus is reached.162 etc. (talk)19:56, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:34, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed onChildren of Israel (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done undersection G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is:

• a disambiguation page with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" which lists only one extant Wikipedia page (i.e., there is aprimary topic);
• a disambiguation page that lists zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• a redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" whose target is neither a disambiguation page nor page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under thecriteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Pleasesee the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you maycontest the nomination byvisiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag.Sir Joseph^(talk)02:12, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirectChildren of Israel (disambiguation) has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 21 § Children of Israel (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached.Sir Joseph^(talk)02:53, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]