User talk:JoelleJay

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

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

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 23:30, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANYBIO and SPORTPERSON

I was thinking about posting something to WT:NBIO and was typing out my thoughts. This is what I came up with and I decided not to post it there, but I am interested in what you think about it:

An interpretation of NBIO is circulating that if a sports achievement is a well-known and significant award or honor (WP:ANYBIO) that the requirement that Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject (WP:NSPORT2022, WP:SPORTSPERSON, and WP:SPORTSIGCOV) does not apply.

Wikipedia:Notability (sports) states that Significant coverage is likely to exist for an athlete in any sport if they have won a medal at the modern Olympic Games (WP:NOLY); the same guideline states that All sports biographies, including those of subjects meeting any criteria listed below / like NOLY/, must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject (SPORTSIGCOV). The combined, properly interpreted provision is that Significant coverage is likely to exist for an athlete in any sport if they have won a medal at the modern Olympic Games, leading to presumed notability if it is possible to include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject. That is the most specific guideline norm in this matter, but it is being turned into dead letter (ineffective, inapplicable, treated as if it doesn't exist) by editors arguing in AfD to the effect that Olympic medal equals presumed notability because that is a "well-known and significant award or honor", without any coverage requirements, even though NBIO also states Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject (SPORTSPERSON). The claim is that the "one reference" requirement does not interact with ANYBIO, and that ANYBIO is always directly applicable in isolation from the rest of the NBIO guideline.

I suggest clarifying ANYBIO to close the possibility of this interpretation—by stating, perhaps in a note, that sports achievements alone cannot be taken to mean that the subject is likely to be notable without at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject.

Please forgive me if it's bad because I'm having a little bit of trouble concentrating ATM. —Alalch E. 01:36, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Alalch E., I think your summary of the situation is very good. I would also emphasize that the requirement that sportsperson articles cite a source of IRS SIGCOV was achieved through recent, strong global consensus (i.e. not just NSPORT talk page consensus) and so certainly better reflects the position of the community in regards to sporting achievements and notability than ANYBIO.

I would anticipate some resistance to this from the NBIO TP watchers (and possibly even NSPORTS TP); lately those pages have had low participation that samples heavily from those who most opposed NSPORT2022. We've run into similar issues in defining the relationship between NBASIC and SPORTCRIT, where of course those who didn't like NSPORT2022 insist that a collection of non-SIGCOV but still "non-trivial" sources are sufficient, but where even some who support SPORTCRIT also think NBASIC can theoretically suffice (albeit rarely and seemingly with higher thresholds for what would satisfy NBASIC than what is typically presented at AfD). So, I think it would be important to maintain a narrow scope for the ANYBIO question so as not to suggest it could have broader implications, and could be beneficial to workshop a bit on any nuance.

Also, IME only one infrequent sportsperson AfD participant has been making these Olympics assertions, though I haven't looked at the delsort recently so it might have gotten worse. It should be sufficient to rebut such claims by pointing to the fact that the community has decided—as recorded at both NSPORT and NBIO—that all sporting achievements, explicitly including Olympic medals, are ineligible for presuming GNG coverage exists in the absence of a GNG-contributing source, even though it's not as direct a rebuttal as reminding editors citing NOLY that SPORTSIGCOV specifically states All sports biographies, including those of subjects meeting any criteria listed below. Having a few more AfDs where this comes up (especially where the argument is unambiguously rejected) couldn't hurt. In any case, I've got a grant due on Tuesday, another grant interview 2 weeks later, and a vacation in between, so will (ideally...) have a reduced bludgeoning budget closing out the fiscal year. JoelleJay (talk) 05:20, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will try to look at some sportsperson AfDs in the following period to see whether the problem is recurring and if it's worth bringing up purely as an interpretation and wp:policy writing is hard problem (PAG-affecting RfC outcomes need to be properly propagated into PAGs systematically and context-sensitively, not necessarily by copying sentence fragments verbatim when the question wasn't formulated as change X text to Y), without risking relitigating things. So I'll keep thinking about it. —Alalch E. 06:12, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

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

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 12:32, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

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

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 06:32, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Our mutual friend

Their WP:SEALIONing in this discussion is just off the hook. Really ridiculous. Just a pity that it's practically impossible to do anything about it unless it's repeated across a large number of pages against a large number of people.. FOARP (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP, I was alerted to this message from User:WikiOriginal-9's post. Can you and @JoelleJay please agree to courtesy {{ping}} me if I'm being talked about like this in the future? I don't think this messaging is appropriate; we are both here to build an encyclopedia together and I am just asking you to extend me the same good faith that I have always shown you both.

Lastly I'll just say if you have any issues with my editing, you can always bring them up with me on my talk and I will respond. Five months ago, FOARP started an ANI thread that ended up being closed a few hours after it started. We came to an agreement that I would not comment in AfD threads for single-Olympians with only database / results listing sources and no national titles or WP:NATH hits, and I have done that since then not out of any obligation but because I want to get along with editors I respect. If something else is bothering you about my edits, can you just tell me what the issue is? --Habst (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I told you all this already directly in the discussion, particularly I said that you were premptively trying to set up a reason to ignore the result of the RFC and that I did not believe that anyone could misunderstand what people were !voting for in the way you professed to do so (i.e., that voters weren't voting on the articles that were literally linked in the RFC). It seems the closer (not to mention the people whose !votes you tried to discount!) tended to agree with me on that. I didn't get the impression that you took in what I was saying there so I'm not sure why you want me to repeat what I said again, but to repeatedly request "clarification" to something that is already clear, in an effort to defeat the purpose of the proceedings, is the very essence of WP:SEALION.

I'm also going to do you a favour and say you need no longer - indeed, I would prefer you not to - engage in excessive professions of respect any more when communicating on WP, at least with me. Regardless of how it is intended, the effect after a while is not pleasant. Normal pleasantries are more than sufficient. FOARP (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at the Wikipedia hackathon this weekend trying to come up with a technical solution to the recent sourcing discussions so forgive me for not being as responsive.

1. Do you really think it's acceptable behavior for an admin to make talk page messages sarcastically titled "Our mutual friend" about another editor?

2. On Wikipedia, RfCs and articles do not have WP:OWNers -- I never asked for or needed clarification, I only tried to add additional options so it wasn't narrowly about one specific article less than 24 hours after an AfD ended, especially if according to your quote "This RFC isn't about deletion" or draftification or transwikifying.

I'm kind of shocked if an admin would think it's OK to make talk page threads topics like this about other Wikipedians. How about we focus on improving Wikipedia instead? --Habst (talk) 02:46, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are shocked then I am sorry that you are. I am also - not “shocked” because for me to say something like that would come off as something said disingenuously merely for effect - but mildly surprised to see you say ”I never asked for or needed clarification” when you in fact did need clarification multiple times, and still professed not to get the point after multiple editors explained it to you.

Anyway, this is JJ’s talk page, and I merely commented here to show solidarity to them as they have also previously expressed frustration with your repeated WP:SEALION-style behaviour. Probably not an advisable thing to do, but also not something done behind your back as it was already explained to you as you were doing it. I don’t intend to discuss this any further here. FOARP (talk) 07:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for admitting your behavior as an admin in making this thread, behind my back without a tag, was completely unacceptable. -- Habst (talk) 11:56, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2025–26 Manchester United F.C. season on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 05:40, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia style and naming request for comment

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

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 16:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]